Patna High Court
Aatish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
In the absence of any allegation of kidnapping in the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., anticipatory bail may be granted subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
Aatish Kumar was accused of kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant under IPC sections 366‑A and 34 and POCSO Act section 8. The victim was recovered and gave a statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., which did not allege any kidnapping or abduction. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and a clean antecedent. The informant opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority (aged between 16 and 18) and lack of consent. The court examined the victim’s statement and found no allegation of kidnapping, and noted that the medical board and magistrate had ascertained the victim’s age. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 30,000 and conditions under Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S. and CrPC 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping and POCSO offences against a minor
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. negates the charge of kidnapping/abduction
- Whether the age of the victim affects the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 2(1)(d), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366-A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO Act
- minor
- section 183
- B.N.S.S.
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8386 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2024 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Aatish Kumar S/o Nanda Ram R/o Village - Chakitwal, P.S - Patahi, District-
East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shail Devi W/o Shivchandra Baitha R/o Village - Chakitwal, P.S - Patahi,
District - East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Patahi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2024 lodged on 18.07.2024,
for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A & 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
three named accused persons including the present petitioner. It
has been alleged by the informant that the petitioner has
kidnapped the informant’s minor daughter with a view to marry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that on previous occasion, this Hon’ble Court has
pleased to call for the case diary as well as statement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8386 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
victim under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. Counsel submits that
the victim girl has been recovered and she has narrated her
statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. Counsel submits
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is ready to fulfill
all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.
Counsel further submits that in the statement under section 183
of the B.N.S.S., there is no allegation of kidnapping or
abduction against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim girl is not
major. It has been acknowledged by the Sessions Court in the
rejection order that the Medical Board has determined the age of
the victim between 17 and 18 years. Counsel further submits
that as per the school certificate, the victim is aged about 16
years and 2 months on the date of alleged occurrence.
Therefore, there is no meaning of the consent of the said victim
and the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application be rejected.
6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but fairly submits
that the informant herself in the FIR has stated the age of her
daughter as 17 years and 6 months. The Doctor has determined
the age of the victim between 17 and 18 years and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8386 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
Magistrate at the time of recording the statement under section
183 of the B.N.S.S has ascertained the age of the victim as 17
years.
7. Upon bare perusal of the statement of the victim
under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., it transpires to this Court that
allegation of either enticing or kidnapping or abduction is not
there.
8. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioner be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of 7th District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Motihari, East Champaran, in
connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 170 of 2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.