Patna High Court

Chandan Kumar Yadav @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Chandan Kumar Yadav was arrested in connection with a kidnapping case (Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 697 of 2025) under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleged to have abducted the minor daughter of an informant. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 showed she voluntarily accompanied him as her boyfriend and no force or inducement was used. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal antecedent. After hearing both sides, the Court found the victim’s voluntary statement persuasive and considered the lack of coercion, deciding to grant bail. The petitioner was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the District & Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO) Act.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a kidnapping case under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 when the victim’s statement indicates voluntary accompaniment.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent precludes the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 137(2), 183, 87
POCSO Act

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
minor
voluntary statement
criminal antecedent
Section 183
B.N.S.
POCSO

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87260 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-697 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Kumar Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Son of Virendra Prasad Yadav @
                 Birendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Ranjitpur, Ward No. 7, P.S.-
                 Punaura, District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Anant Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                  Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar, learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 697 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the

                   petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also

                   submits that during the course of investigation, the victim has

                   given her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS,

                   wherein she has stated that she was on talking terms with the

                   petitioner. The petitioner is her boyfriend and she wanted to marry
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87260 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     him, i.e., why she left her house without disclosing it to anyone,

                     and with the petitioner, she went to Muzaffarpur and from

                     Muzaffarpur, both of them went to Kolkata. They lived there for 2-

                     3 days, and after she came to know regarding the case, they

                     returned. He further submits that from perusal of the statement of

                     the victim, it is clear that she has gone with the petitioner on her

                     own sweet will. No force was used, or she was enticed anyway.

                     Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since

                     18.10.2025.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal

                     antecedent of one case.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.          The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

                     of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the

                     like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District &

                     Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO) Act,

                     Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 697 of 2025.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…