Patna High Court

Rohit Kumar @ Rokit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he forcibly took the informant's niece in an auto and misbehaved with her. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that the victim had expressed love for him, had married him, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., which supported the prosecution. The court examined the allegations and the victim’s statement and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial within one year, with a provision for the petitioner to renew bail after that period if the trial is not concluded.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Section 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involving alleged forcible abduction and misbehavior.
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. supports the prosecution sufficiently to deny bail.
Whether the petitioner’s claim of a consensual relationship and lack of criminal antecedents warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 96

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 96 B.N.S.S.
Section 183 B.N.S.S.
kidnapping
sexual assault
victim testimony
trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71146 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2025 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Rohit Kumar @ Rokit Kumar S/O Tapeshwar Sao, Resident of Village-
                 Pirthu, P.S- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad.
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   21-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Salaiya

                   P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 dated 12.07.2025 instituted for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had

                   forcibly taken the niece of the informant in an Auto and went to an

                   unknown place where he misbehaved with her.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this

                   case. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the victim were

                   caught by the police from Anugrah Narayan Railway Station. The

                   victim was examined by the police and she clearly stated that since

                   last two years, she is in love with the petitioner and she with her
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71146 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
                                                      2/2




                    own sweet will, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner.

                    Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

                    14.07.2025 having no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has been

                    submitted in the case.

                                 5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                    vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

                                 6. Perused the statement of the victim recorded under

                    Section 183 B.N.S.S. in which she has supported the case of the

                    prosecution.

                                 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and allegation

                    levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the

                    petitioner at this stage.

                                 8. Accordingly the prayer for grant of regular bail is

                    rejected.

                                 9. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial

                    and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest,

                    preferably, within a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt

                    or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not

                    concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at

                    liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the expiry of one year.


                                                                     (Khatim Reza, J)

premchand/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…