Patna High Court

Irfan AliversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

Summary

The petitioner, Irfan Ali, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR alleged his involvement in kidnapping a girl for marriage, invoking IPC sections 363, 366(A), 34 and POCSO sections 8 and 17. The petitioner claimed a clean record and argued that the alleged victim, initially said to be 17, later declared herself 19 and was medically assessed as over 22, stating she had voluntarily married the petitioner and was residing with him. The victim did not support the prosecution. The State opposed the bail. The court considered the victim’s consent, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the nature of the offences, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, with a bail bond and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping and POCSO offences where the alleged victim now consents and claims marriage
Whether the alleged age of the victim (minor versus adult) impacts the grant of anticipatory bail
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the victim’s statement justify bail under Section 438 of the CrPC

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 17, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
kidnapping
marriage
POCSO
age of consent
IPC
CrPC

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79712 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-517 Year-2022 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Irfan Ali S/o Mukhtar Miya Resident of Village - Dumariya, P.S.- Uchkagaon,
                 Distt.- Gopalganj

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XXXXX W/o YYYY Resident of Village -Ranipur, P.S.- Barhariya, Distt.-
                 Siwan

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-01-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363,

                   366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 8 and 17

                   POCSO Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that her daughter aged about 17 years was kidnapped by

                   the accused persons including the petitioner for the purposes of

                   marriage.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79712 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner and the victim were in love and they eloped and they

          have performed their marriage. It is also submitted that victim

          came back and her statement was recorded under Section 164

          Cr.P.C. wherein she disclosed her age as 19 years and the

          doctors assessed the age of the victim above 22 years. It is also

          submitted that victim did not support the case of the prosecution

          rather she stated that she married the petitioner and was staying

          with him at Delhi. It is next submitted that even presuming what

          has been alleged in the FIR to be true without admitting that

          victim was 17 years of age, in that event also victim had reached

          the age of discretion where she was able to understand the

          consequences of her act.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case

          is pending/successor court in connection with Barhariya P.S.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79712 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                       Case No.517/2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under

                       Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…