Patna High Court
Monu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and conditions.
Summary
Monu Kumar was accused of eloping with the 17‑year‑old daughter of an informant, leading to an FIR under Sections 96, 137(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, the victim was actually 17½‑18 years old and the relationship was consensual, and that the medical report showed no signs of sexual assault. The victim’s statements changed under pressure, and independent witnesses corroborated a love relationship. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail, contending the seriousness of the allegations. The High Court, considering the lack of evidence of force or assault and the victim’s apparent consent, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and a condition that one bailor be a close relative, while directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged elopement and possible kidnapping of a minor.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s age affect the bail decision.
- Whether the evidence, including medical report and witness statements, justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 137(2), 3(5), 351(2), 482(2), 96
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S
- minor consent
- FIR delay
- medical report
- love relationship
- kidnapping
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69684 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- Mathurapur District- Samastipur
======================================================
Monu Kumar S/O Dev Narayan Rai Resident of Village- Begampur, Ward
No. 09, P.S.- Mathurapur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Thakur
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh
For the Informant Mr. Ranjan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered under Sections 96, 137(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS.
3. The allegation in the first information report is that
the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years had left her
house but did not come back and after search, it was gathered
that one Monu Kumar (petitioner) had allured the victim and
had eloped with her. The family members of Monu Kumar were
made accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the
outset, that the first information report was lodged after a delay
of two days inasmuch as while the occurrence took place on
31.05.2025 the FIR was lodged on 02.06.2025 with no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69684 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
explanation being tendered in this regard. As a matter of fact,
the petitioner and the informant’s daughter were in a love
relationship and the petitioner was an adult although she has
been alleged to be 17 years as per the FIR itself but from the
medical report, it would appear that her age was assessed to be
between 17 ½ to 18 years. It was thus a consensual relationship
between two adults and the victim had gone along with the
petitioner out of her free will. It has also been pointed out that
after her recovery her statement was first recorded under Section
180 of the BNSS in paragraph-27 of the case diary where in she
has not made any allegation against the present petitioner and
has rather stated that she had left her house alone and had
returned upon knowledge of the present case lodged by her
mother. She however, changed her statement under Section 180
of the BNSS, being in presence of her mother, by stating that the
petitioner had taken her away forcefully on the pretext of
marriage and after having stayed with her for 6 to 7 days and
establishing physical relationship, she was brought back to
Mathurapur P.S. It would also appear that she was subjected to
medical examination on the next date of her recovery and the
medical opinion shows that there were no signs of sexual
assault. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69684 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
case of Anas Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr in Cr. Appeal
No. 7576 of 2025.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the
informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that since
the thrust of allegation is against the petitioner, he does not
deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering that the victim was either a
major or reaching the age of majority and it was her conscious
choice of going with the petitioner and there is no material to
reflect that she made any attempt to raise any resistance,
coupled with the consideration of statements of independent
witnesses recorded in paragraph-110 and 111 of the case diary
that the petitioner and the victim were in love relationship with
each other, let the above named petitioner, 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 Mathurapur P.S. Case no.55 of 2025 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69684 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
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 condition:
(i) One of the bailors will be a family member/close
relative.
7. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall
extend complete cooperation in the investigation and would not
misuse the liberty in order to influence the witness or tamper
with any evidence on record.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…