Patna High Court
Muninder Singh @ Narendra SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Muninder Singh, was arrested in connection with a 2014 case alleging that he kidnapped a minor girl and married her, offences charged under IPC sections 366A and 34 and investigated as a POCSO case. He has been in custody since 23 February 2020, amounting to over six years of pre‑trial detention. The prosecution claims the witnesses, including the victim and a doctor, have been examined, but several non‑official witnesses have not appeared despite summons and warrants. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and that the trial was being delayed by the prosecution’s failure to secure witness attendance. Considering the prolonged detention, the lack of cooperation by the prosecution, and the petitioner’s willingness to comply with conditions, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions of personal appearance and cooperation.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a case under IPC 366A and 34 involving alleged kidnapping for marriage of a minor, given the nature of the offence and the length of pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the trial’s delay attributable to non‑appearance of witnesses justifies bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- kidnapping for marriage
- child marriage
- IPC 366A
- IPC 34
- POCSO
- witness non‑appearance
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77799 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2014 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa
======================================================
Muninder Singh @ Narendra Sah S/o Darbari Singh R/o village - Kotha, P.S -
Katra, District - Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chauki Sah S/o Late Aklu Sah, R/o village Baluaha, P.S. Mahishi, District
Saharasa
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of
regular bail in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case no. 160 of
2014 registered under sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of
the informant was kidnapped and taken away for the purpose of
marriage. She was married to the petitioner. The informant
states that inspite of search she was not to be found.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Inspite of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77799 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026
2/4
petitioner having remained in custody since 23.2.2020, the
informant/prosecution side is not interested in concluding the trial
and thus are not appearing to depose in the learned Court below.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody
for over six year since 23.2.2020. He undertakes to cooperate in the
trial and to abide by any conditions which may be laid by this Court
for his release on bail.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the informant that the prosecution witnesses have
supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. The trial is near
its end and as such the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
6. A report with respect to stage of the trial was called
for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received
contained in letter dated 4.12.2025, though five prosecution
witnesses including the victim and the Doctor have been
examined, however the report further states that summons,
bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants have been issued
against the remaining non-official witnesses as also the
Investigating Officer of the case. The report further states that
the Court has written different letters on 12.9.2025 as also
25.9.2025 to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77799 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026
3/4
Police, Saharsa to ensure the presence of the witnesses.
7. On a query put by the Court to learned counsel for
the informant as to why the non-official witnesses were not
appearing inspite of the steps being taken by the learned trial
Court, the only reply forthcoming was that the trial is at near its
conclusion.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the non-
official witnesses not appearing in the learned Court below
inspite of issuance of summons, bailable warrants and non-
bailable warrants and specially the petitioner having remained in
custody for over six years since 23.2.2020, the Court directs the
petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mahishi P.S.
Case no. 160 of 2014 (POCSO Case no.54 of 2019) 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 VIth
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge POCSO Act,
Saharsa on the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the
father of the petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor of the petitioner shall be a person
resident of a place within the jurisdiction of the learned trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77799 of 2025(5) dt.11-03-2026
4/4
Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial and shall cooperate in the trial.
(iv) In case the learned trial Court is of the opinion
that the trial is being delayed due to non-cooperation on part of
the petitioner, the learned trial Court may cancel the bail bond of
the petitioner and take him into custody till conclusion of the
trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.