Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Ravi Kumar Mandal sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC Section 366(A) alleging kidnapping of a woman. The prosecution alleged the informant's daughter eloped with a man, but the petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, asserting that he had married the woman, who is a major, on 17 July 2023 in Nepal, and that a compromise petition had been filed. The opposite party did not dispute the marriage and confirmed they are living together. The court examined whether the marriage and compromise negated the alleged offence and considered the merits of granting anticipatory bail. It granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including bail bonds, sureties, and compliance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under IPC Section 366(A) given the existence of a marriage and compromise.
- Whether the marriage of the alleged victim, who is a major, extinguishes the alleged offence of kidnapping under Section 366(A).
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 366A
- kidnapping
- marriage
- compromise
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82143 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2022 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Mandal S/O Bijali Mandal R/O Village- Kamalpur, P.S-
Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Devi W/O Rajesh Sao R/O Village- Garibnagar, P.S- Suryagarha
(Manikpur), Distt.- Lakhisarai.
3. Minu Kumari W/O Ravi Kumar Mandal, D/O Rajesh Kumar Sao R/O
Village- Garibnagar, P.S- Suryagarha, Distt.- Lakhisarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
For the State : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Suryagarha (Manikpura) P.S. Case No. 57 of 2022 registered for
the offences under Sections 366(A) of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that her daughter had left home and was having a love
affair with one person who was the holder of a particular mobile
number. It is stated that the daughter of the informant fled away
along with the said mobile number holder on 23.02.2022 and
since then she has remained traceless.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82143 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and
that there is no material whatsoever to suggest that the petitioner
had kidnapped the daughter of the informant. It has next been
submitted that the daughter of the informant was in love with
the petitioner and that they have solemnized marriage on
17.07.2023 at Ram Janaki Mandir at Nepal. The matrimonial
agreement has been brought on record and marked as Annexure-
P/2 and a compromise petition has also been filed before the
learned trial court. It has further been submitted that the girl is
major and has married the petitioner of her own free will and
therefore the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has a clean
antecedent.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of OP No. 2
does not dispute the factum of marriage between the informant’s
daughter and the petitioner and further submits that they are
presently living together and that a compromise to the said
effect has already been filed before the learned trial court.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission and the fact
that the petitioner had married with the victim girl who happens
to be a major, let the petitioner above named be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82143 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Suryagarha (Manikpura) P.S. Case No. 57 of
2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82143 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…