Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS Case No. 298 of 2022) involving kidnapping of a minor girl for the purpose of marriage. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with others, abducted the child and solemnized her marriage to Vinay Sagwan, charging him under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 370, 370(A), 376 and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC names the petitioner as a participant. The petitioner’s counsel contended that he has no role in the FIR and maintains a clean antecedent. The court, considering the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s recorded statement, refused the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the allegations and victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC.
  • Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • kidnapping
  • child marriage
  • POCSO
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • bail jurisprudence
  • minor victim

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84234 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2022 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav Son of Rajeshwar Yadav At present
                 Resident of Village Tumkahi Road, P.S. Sevrahi, District Kushinagar (Uttar
                 Pradesh) permanent Address Resident of Village- Motipur, Mahdubani, P.S.-
                 Takraha, District- West Champaran.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Fulwanti Devi Wife of Baijnath Ram Resident of Village- Banshi Tola, P.S.-
                 Dhanha, District- West Champaran.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :      Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   17-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant

                   and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Dhanha P. S. Case

                   No. 298 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 370(A), 376 of the Indian Penal

                   Code and Sections 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from

                   Sexual Offences Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, this petitioner along with

                   others kidnapped minor daughter of the informant for the

                   purpose of marriage. During course of investigation, victim was

                   recovered and in her statement, recorded under Section 164 of
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84234 of 2025(3) dt.17-03-2026
                                                          2/2




                        the Cr.P.C., she has supported the prosecution case and has

                        stated that when she was returning from school, co-accused

                        Mithilesh Kumar took her to a temple on motorcycle where this

                        petitioner and others solemnized her marriage with one Vinay

                        Sagwan.

                                     4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                        petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. No role has

                        been assigned to the petitioner in the entire F.I.R. and he has

                        falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner claims clean

                        antecedent.

                                     5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently

                        opposed the bail application and submitted that victim has

                        named this petitioner as one of the persons who participated in

                        the alleged offence and forcibly solemnized her marriage with

                        one Vinay Sagwan.

                                     6. In view of the gravity of offence and statement of

                        the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prayer for

                        anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-

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.