Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar @ Om Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the victim’s statement indicated no element of enticement and there was no evidence of tampering or serious risk.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging he enticed a minor for marriage. The prosecution alleged that the minor disappeared and was allegedly taken by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS showed she went with him voluntarily, negating the element of "enticement" required for the offence, and highlighted her near‑majority age and lack of evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, but the court considered the victim’s statement and the absence of serious tampering or similar prior offences. Consequently, the court ordered bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, allowing the petitioner's release.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case under Section 366(A) IPC given the facts.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS negates the element of "enticement" required for Section 366(A).
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366(A)
Subjects
- regular bail
- Section 366(A) IPC
- enticing away of minor
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89583 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2024 Thana- Sikandarpur District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Prakash Kumar @ Om Prakash Kumar S/o Jay Mangal Prasad Resident of
village- ward no 9, Madhahga, P.S.- Rajepur, Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX W/o Bhola Raut R/o vill - Sikandrapur, ward no. 13, P.s.- Sikandrapur,
Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 18-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sikandrapur P.S. Case
No. 22 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 03.04.2024 at about
4:00 A.M., the daughter of the informant/victim left her house to
go to her aunt’s house but did not return. Thereafter, a hectic
search was conducted, but no trace of her was found. It has been
alleged that, in the course of the search, it came to light that one
Prakash Kumar (petitioner), who used to reside near the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89583 of 2025(5) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
of the informant, had enticed away the minor daughter of the
informant for the purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. It has been further submitted that the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS which was
called for by order dated 19.01.2026 indicates that the victim
joined the company of the petitioner out of her own free will,
and there was no element of “enticing away” or “taking away”
so as to constitute an offences under Section 366(A) of the IPC.
Moreover, the victim is on the verge of attaining majority and
she was not of such tender age so as to not understand the
consequences of her action. The petitioner is in custody since
03.11.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted and there is no
allegation of tampering with evidence. Lastly, it has been
submitted that though the petitioner has one criminal antecedent
but not of similar nature of offence and he is on bail in that case.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties and particularly the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., let the petitioner above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89583 of 2025(5) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned,
Muzaffarpur, in connection with Sikandrapur P.S. Case No. 22
of 2024.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…