Patna High Court
Brajesh Sahani @ Brajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the alleged offences involved a minor and the petitioner had absconded for three years.
Summary
Brajesh Sahani sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was accused of kidnapping and attempting to marry a minor, alleged under IPC sections 363, 366A/34 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12. The prosecution alleged that the minor daughter of a complainant went missing and was allegedly enticed for marriage. The petitioner claimed the allegations were false, stating the victim had declared under Section 164 CrPC that she was already married to him and was never kidnapped, though she was a minor at the time. The State opposed bail, noting the victim’s minority and the petitioner’s prior abscondence and earlier bail denial. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the offences involving a minor and the petitioner’s three‑year abscondence, rejected the anticipatory bail application and ordered the petitioner to surrender within four weeks, stating the order would not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping for marriage of a minor under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior abscondence and earlier bail rejection affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
- Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping for marriage
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85271 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2021 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Brajesh Sahani @ Brajesh Kumar, Son of Birendra Sahani, Resident of
Village - Sonbarsa, PS - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Subhash Yadav, Son of Bharat Yadav, R/o Village - Harsidhi Ahir Toli, P.S. -
Harsidhi, Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjana Srivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 438 of 2021 registered for the offences
under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 8, 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that his minor daughter had gone to school and
thereafter she did not return. It has been alleged that the
petitioner has enticed his minor daughter for the purpose of
marriage and they both were found to be missing.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85271 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no offence
as alleged has occurred. It has further been submitted that the
victim on recovery had stated in her statement under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. that she is married to the petitioner and she
was never kidnapped. It has next been submitted that she was
also pregnant with the petitioner, however, the victim at the time
of occurrence was admittedly minor. It has lastly been submitted
that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that though the
victim might have stated that she had married with the
petitioner, however, the victim was a minor at the time of
occurrence and moreover the petitioner had approached the
learned Trial Court way back in 2022 for grant of anticipatory
bail and the same was rejected on 24.05.2022 and thereafter the
petitioner has filed the present application in the year 2025.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, I am not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who had
absconded for three years and moreover at the relevant time,
i.e., at the time of occurrence, the victim was admittedly a
minor.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85271 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
Rejected.
8. On considering the aforesaid submission, let the
petitioner surrender within four weeks from today and the
learned Trial Court shall pass necessary order without being
prejudiced by this rejection order.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…