Patna High Court
Om Prakash Rajak @ Golu @ GolooversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a cash bond, sureties and conditions of cooperation with the investigation.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Rajak, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case registered under Sections 96, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.S. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act concerning the alleged kidnapping of a minor. The FIR initially named only Rahul Mandal as the accused, but the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. later implicated the petitioner as a participant in the abduction and a subsequent marriage. The petitioner argued that he was not mentioned in the original FIR and that the victim’s statement was inconsistent and unsupported by a medical examination. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner’s alleged involvement warranted his detention. Considering the lack of the petitioner’s name in the FIR, the contradictory nature of the victim’s testimony, and the conditions imposed under Sections 438(2) of the CrPC and 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties, and cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person not named in the FIR but later implicated through a victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and the absence of a medical examination justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 3(5), 352, 438(2), 482(2), 96
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- POCSO Act — s. 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO Act
- Section 183
- FIR
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69678 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2024 Thana- BANKA District- Banka
======================================================
Om Prakash Rajak @ Golu @ Goloo S/O Late Lakshmikant Rajak Resident
of Lakrikola (Majira), P.S. and Dist. - Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mr. XXX S/O Late YYY Resident of Lakrikola (Majira), P.S. and Dist. -
Banka
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. However, despite issuance of notice and the
same being personally received by the opposite party no. 2, no
one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered under Sections 96, 352, 3(5) of the BNS and Section
4 of the POCSO Act.
3. Allegation in the first information report relates to
kidnapping of the minor daughter of the informant by one Rahul
Mandal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
would be apparent from the first information report that the
thrust of the allegation made in the FIR is against co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69678 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
Rahul Mandal. However, the name of the petitioner does not
figure in the FIR. It has further been submitted that the
informant has himself stated that on 29.09.2024 after 11:00 p.m.
when they had all gone to sleep, the victim had gone out of the
house and did not come back and subsequently he came to know
that she had been allured by co-accused Rahul Mandal.
However, the said incident was reported only on 01.10.2024
after due thought and deliberation and yet the name of the
petitioner did not figure. The petitioner’s name transpired during
the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of the BNSS
wherein she has narrated the story in a different manner which is
totally contrary to the first information report by stating that at
12 noon on 29.09.2024 while she was alone in the house, she
was abducted by Rahul and his friends including the present
petitioner. Upon reading of the statement, it would further
appear that the marriage was performed with Rahul which was
aided by the petitioner and others and she has herself stated
subsequently that both of them came back to the house
whereafter Rahul was taken into custody.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned A.P.P. for the State.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69678 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner
was originally not named in the first information report and has
been made an accused on account of being a
friend/acquaintance of the main accused Rahul and also upon
considering the narration of story by the victim under Section
183 of the BNSS coupled with the fact that she even refused a
medical examination, let the petitioner above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in
connection with Banka P.S. Case no.407 of 2024 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
Court below where the case is pending subject to the condition
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023, subject to the
conditions:
(i) The petitioner would cooperate in the
investigation/ trial.
(ii) One of the bailors will be a family member/close
relative.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…