Patna High Court

Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Raju Ray, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 140(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., alleging kidnapping of the informant's minor son and a forced marriage. The victim, after being rescued, gave a statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. describing the alleged abduction, intoxication, and marriage. The petitioner claimed innocence, no prior criminal record, and that no marriage actually occurred, while the State and informant contended that the petitioner was responsible for the offenses. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations, and directed that the petitioner may reapply after six months if the trial remains pending. The trial court was also instructed to expedite the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the alleged kidnapping and forced marriage of a minor
Whether the seriousness of the charges under the B.N.S. warrants denial of bail at the present stage

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 140(1), 3(5), 96
B.N.S.S. — s. 183

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
forced marriage
minor
criminal procedure
B.N.S.
B.N.S.S.

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73127 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2025 Thana- HALAI District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Raju Ray @ Raju Kumar Ray, S/o Chandeshwar Ray, R/V- Bagraha
                 (Kancha), P.S.- Vidyapatinagar, Dist.- Samastipur

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Advocate
                                                   Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   13-01-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Halai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 140(1) and 3(5) of the

                   B.N.S.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   minor son of the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner and

                   others.

                                 4. During course of investigation, the victim was

                   recovered and has given his statement under Section 183 of the

                   B.N.S.S. wherein he has stated that the petitioner and other three

                   persons boarded him in a Bolero vehicle, administered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73127 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/3




          intoxicant in drink and afterward solemnized his marriage with

          a girl whom he was not knowing. The marriage was solemnized

          in Begusarai in a temple. After that, he was taken to Katihar. His

          signature was taken on a plain paper. The victim has stated that

          the petitioner was always there.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

          committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

          case. The victim boy has been recovered and no marriage was

          solemnized. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he

          is languishing in judicial custody since 03.07.2025.

                       5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned

          counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

          application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has

          submitted that petitioner is person who is responsible for the

          offence and he has forcefully solemnized the marriage of a

          minor boy with a girl whom he was not knowing.

                       6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

          and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as

          such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

                       7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73127 of 2025(3) dt.13-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.

                                    8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.


                                                      (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…