Sonu Kumar @ Sonu YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91172 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
                 ======================================================
                 Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav Son of Sundrika Rai Resident of Village-
                 Parsauni Baij, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XX Wife of Late Kesholal Sah Resident of Village- Parsauni Baij, P.S.-
                 Piprahi, District- Sheohar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Vikash Khanna, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-01-2026                  Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

                   State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 161 of 2025, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. The allegation against the petitioner is of enticing

                   away the daughter of the informant and solemnizing marriage,

                   besides the accusation of threatening and taking away Rs.

                   50,000/-.

                                4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91172 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner taking this Court through the FIR contended that the

          alleged occurrence took place on 02.04.2025, but surprisingly

          the present FIR came to be instituted on 14.08.2025, after a

          delay of four months and ten days, without there being any

          explanation for the delay in institution of the FIR. In fact the

          petitioner and the victim girl were in good relationship and later

          on, after realizing the fact that they have attained the majority,

          solemnized the marriage, but as the family members of the

          victim was not happy with such marriage, the present FIR came

          to be instituted. It is next contended that the matriculation

          certificate also supports the submissions regarding majority of

          the victim girl, inasmuch as, her date of birth has been shown to

          be 16.04.2007 and the FIR came to be instituted on 14.08.2025.

          In the aforesaid premise the learned Advocate for the petitioner

          submits that there is no application of penal provision of

          Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The

          petitioner undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the

          proceeding of the Court and abide by the terms and condition.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

          vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits

          that there is a specific accusation against the petitioner of

          enticing away the minor daughter of the informant.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91172 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                         3/3




                                    6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

                       learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of

                       the unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, coupled with the

                       fair antecedent of the petitioner and as also the fact that the

                       victim prima facie appears to be major and was a consented

                       party, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the

                       event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a

                       period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a

                       copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

                       (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                       satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO,

                       Sheohar, District Sheohar in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case

                       No. 161 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section

                       482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the

                       further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close

                       family members of the petitioner.



                                                   (Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-

U      T