Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kanchan Mandal @ Suraj MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations sufficient to justify continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Kanchan Mandal, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 363, 366A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging kidnapping of a 14‑year‑old girl for marriage. The prosecution’s informant claimed the girl was abducted by the petitioner and another accused, and her statement recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. contradicted the petitioner’s claim of false implication and highlighted a three‑day delay in lodging the FIR. The State opposed bail, noting the medical board’s assessment that the victim was between 14 and 16 years old and her unequivocal statement that she was forcibly kidnapped by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the Court found the allegations serious and the victim’s testimony credible, and therefore refused to grant bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s age
  • Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged contradictions in the victim’s statements affect the bail application

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • kidnapping
  • child marriage
  • bail
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Indian Penal Code
  • victim statement
  • age of victim

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78343 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Kanchan Mandal @ Suraj Mandal, S/o Tuntun Mandal, R/o Village- Harihar
                 Tola, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Alamnagar, District- Madhepura
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Mithilesh Ram, S/o Saryug Das, R/o Village- Kunjouri, Ward No. 02, P.S -
                  Alamnagar, District - Madhepura
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case

                   no.211 of 2024 registered under sections 363, 366A, 504, 506

                   and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that his 14 year old daughter was kidnapped by two accused for

                   the purpose of marriage.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is an

                   unexplained delay of three days in lodging of the F.I.R. The

                   victim returned and her statement was recorded under sections

                   161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and there is contradiction in the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78343 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      same. The petitioner is in custody since 21.8.2024 and charge-

                      sheet has been submitted in the case. He has no criminal

                      antecedent.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

                      A.P.P. for the State who submits that the age of the victim was

                      assessed by the medical board to be between 14 to 16 years.

                      Further in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. she has

                      categorically stated that she was forcibly kidnapped by the

                      petitioner and one another and the petitioner misbehaved with

                      her against her wishes.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in

                      the F.I.R. together with the contents of the statement of the

                      victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is

                      not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application

                      is rejected.

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



                                                         (Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.