Patna High Court
Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar BarhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that without a recorded victim statement under Section 183 BNSS, pre‑arrest bail cannot be granted and ordered the lower court to obtain the statement before passing a fresh order.
Summary
Suraj Kumar Barhi, a 20‑year‑old, was charged with kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant under several sections of the BNS and later under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the charge‑sheet was already filed, there was no evidence of tampering, and that he had a clean antecedent, the case arising from a family enmity. The informant’s counsel contended that the petitioner forcibly abducted the child with intent to commit a wrong and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS supported the FIR. The State opposed bail. The High Court, noting the petitioner’s young age and the absence of the victim’s statement on record, modified the lower court’s order, directing it to obtain the victim’s statement to determine whether it was given voluntarily before any fresh bail order could be made. Consequently, the bail application was disposed of pending the victim’s statement.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the accused in a kidnapping case involving a minor under the BNS and POCSO statutes.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS is necessary to substantiate the FIR allegations before granting bail.
- Whether the accused’s age and clean antecedent warrant a bail order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- kidnapping
- pre‑arrest bail
- minor
- POCSO Act
- victim statement
- age of accused
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69877 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2025 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar Barhi, aged about 20 years, Male, S/o- Binod
Mistri @ Binod Barhi R/o village - Bargama ward no. 12 , P.s- Bheja , District
- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Annu Khatoon w/o- Md. Sultan, Resident of Village- Bhargama Ps- Bheja
Dist- Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP
For the informant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned APP
for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Bheja P.S. Case No. 38 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),76,74,352,351(2),3(5) of the BNS and later on
Section 8/12 of POCSO Act was also added.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant with an
intention to commit wrong.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69877 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that charge-sheet has already been
submitted and there is no question of tampering with the
evidence or influencing the witnesses. Petitioner is aged about
20 years and has not committed any crime as alleged in the FIR.
The petitioner has been roped in the present case due to
previous enmity between the families of the petitioner and
informant. Petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel, has
tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant. He
submitted that petitioner forcibly took the minor daughter of the
informant with an intention to commit wrong and when the
informant came to know about the said incidence and went to
the house of the petitioner to complain about the same, all the
accused persons named in the FIR including parents of the
petitioner threatened him for dire consequences. Victim has
supported the allegation made in the FIR in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, though the same is not on
record.
6. Learned APP for the State also vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69877 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
of the parties, as well as, having taken into consideration the age
of the petitioner, who is aged about 20 years and has just
emerged as an adult and there is no reference of the statement
recorded under Section 183 BNSS to support the allegation, the
order dated 17.06.2025 of the learned District Court is modified
by directing the learned District Court to call for the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS and see, as to
whether, the victim has supported the allegations made in the
FIR voluntarily or she has been tutored and under threat has
supported the allegation made in the FIR. In case, the victim
has not supported the prosecution case then in that case, after
analyzing the records and considering the fact that charge-sheet
has been submitted, the learned District Court shall pass a fresh
order in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the
earlier rejection order dated 17.06.2025 and observation made
therein.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…