Patna High Court
Niraj Kumar @ Neeraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court conditionally grants pre‑arrest bail, subject to verification of the victim’s age and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the order lapsing if any other pending case is found.
Summary
The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, aged 23, was arrested in connection with a kidnapping allegation under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the B.N.S., involving the minor daughter of the informant Soni Devi. He contended that a similar allegation when he was a juvenile resulted in his release after a Juvenile Justice Board determination, and that the alleged victim now states the marriage was voluntary, though it is void as she is a minor. The State opposed pre‑arrest bail, arguing repeated attempts to abduct the minor and the seriousness of the offence. The Court noted the victim’s statement and the prior similar case, and directed the District Court to verify the victim’s age and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If the victim is found to have attained majority, the petitioner is to be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS; otherwise the order will lapse.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a kidnapping case involving a minor and alleged child marriage.
- Whether the victim's age and consent affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior similar charge and criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 183, 482(2), 96
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- minor
- age verification
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68665 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2024 Thana- TIKAPATTI District- Purnia
======================================================
Niraj Kumar @ Neeraj Kumar, Aged about- 23 years, (Male) Son of Babu Lal
Rishi, Resident of village- Dumari, P.S.- Tikapatti, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Soni Devi W/O Subodh Kumar Modi Resident of Dumari, P.S.- Tikapatti,
Dist.- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Bijendra Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. Mrityunjaya
Kr.Gautam, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 213 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
had allegedly kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that for the similar allegation, when the
petitioner was juvenile, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68665 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
being Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 95 of 2022 and the petitioner had
remained in custody for 1 year and 6 months. After
determination of age made by Juvenile Justice Board, the
petitioner was released and he has been again roped in the
present case for similar allegation, which cannot be sustained.
Petitioner, who is aged about 23 years, has already suffered
because of frivolous allegation levelled against him. The victim
in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, has given
information that she was not kidnapped by the petitioner or his
family members, rather, she had willingly solemnized marriage
with the petitioner. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submitted that two cases are pending against the
petitioner, though, for the similar allegation. Petitioner has
repeatedly tried to kidnap the minor daughter of the informant
by luring her. Petitioner is now aged about 23 years and his
conduct has affected the growth of the minor daughter of the
informant and his entire family members have been subjected to
face the consequences of void marriage. He further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68665 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
that the daughter of the informant being minor is still living with
her parents. Petitioner don't deserve to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, the allegation made in the FIR, I find
that the petitioner is facing prosecution for similar allegation,
which was alleged in respect of earlier case relating to Tikapatti
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2022. The victim in her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS in respect of the present case, has
given statement that she was not kidnapped by the petitioner or
his family members, rather, she had willingly solemnized
marriage with the petitioner, however, the marriage of minor is
void. The petitioner has emotionally tried to influence the minor
daughter of the informant to be in relationship with him. The
present is one case in which the victim girl got infatuated with
the petitioner having been emotionally charged by the conduct
of the petitioner.
8. Learned District Court is directed to verify the age
of the victim and if it is found that she had attained majority on
the date of her statement under Section 183 BNSS was
recorded, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released
on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68665 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is
pending, in connection with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 213 of
2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2)
of the BNSS.
9. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…