Patna High Court
Sunil PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Sunil Pandit and two other villagers, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging kidnapping of a minor daughter of an informant. The FIR, filed under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, alleged that the petitioners, along with others, abducted the 16‑year‑old victim. The petitioners claimed innocence, arguing that the case stemmed from village politics and that the FIR was lodged after an unreasonable four‑day delay. The State opposed bail, highlighting the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., which directly implicated the petitioners. Considering the specific accusations, the seriousness of the offence, and the victim’s recorded statement, the court rejected the anticipatory bail applications and dismissed the petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. warrants denial of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Section 183
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79597 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2024 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sunil Pandit son of Bhola Pandit @ Bhola Pandti Resident of village- Mauna
PS -Mahindwara Distt -Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ Wife of Pawan Pandit Resident of village- Mauna PS -Mahindwara
Distt -Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79159 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2024 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Awadhesh Kumar @ Awadesh Kuma S/o- Surendra Pandit Resident of
Village-Mahindwara PS- Mahindwara Distt- Sitamarhi
2. Pappu Kumar S/o- Umesh Pandit Resident of Village-Mauna PS-
Mahindwara Distt- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ W/o- Pawan Pandit Resident of Village-Mauna PS- Mahindwara Distt-
Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79597 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79159 of 2025)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79597 of 2025(4) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
2. Since both these petitions arise out of the same P.S.
case they are being taken up together and disposed of by this
common order.
3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 96 and 3(5)
of the B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners,
kidnapped minor daughter of informant.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are
co-villagers and petitioners have falsely been implicated in this
case due to village politics. The present F.I.R. has been lodged
after inordinate delay of four days and there is no plausible
explanation for the same which itself makes the entire
prosecution case doubtful.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, kidnapped minor daughter of informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79597 of 2025(4) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
During investigation, the victim was recovered and in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she has
supported the prosecution case and has named these petitioners
as persons who kidnapped her. The learned trial court has
assessed the age of victim as 16 years.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected and both these bail applications are
dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…