Patna High Court

Bittu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Bittu Kumar, a 20‑year‑old student, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 333 of 2025 alleging that he abducted a minor girl for the purpose of marriage, invoking sections 137(2) and 96 of the B.N.S. and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The informant, Vinay Pal, filed the complaint and the victim later recanted her earlier statement, claiming it was made under coercion and now supported the prosecution. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail. The Court examined the allegations, the victim’s changed testimony, and the petitioner’s age, and concluded that the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s corroboration warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, directing that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the trial court may consider his age and other circumstances. The order emphasizes that the bail relief will not be granted at this stage.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under sections 137(2) and 96 of the B.N.S. and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act
Whether the victim’s statement that earlier testimony was given under coercion affects the bail application
Whether the petitioner’s age (20 years) is a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 96
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
POCSO Act
minor
marriage
coercion
age factor
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9884 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2025 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Bittu Kumar S/o Sanjay Chandravanshi Resident of Village - Panti, P.S.-
                 Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Binay Pal S/o Baiju Pal R/o Village - Pokhrahin, P.S - Nabinagar, District -
                 Aurangabad

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 For the informant        :      Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   25-03-2026                  Heard Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State as

                   also Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

                   informant.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Nabinagar P.S. Case no. 333 of 2025 for the offence under

                   section 137 (2), 96 B.N.S. and under Section 8/12 POCSO Act

                   lodged on 22.11.2025 by the informant, Vinay Pal.

                                3. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner took

                   away the minor girl of the complainant for the purpose of

                   marriage. This led to institution of Nabinagar P.S. Case no. 333

                   of 2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9884 of 2026(3) dt.25-03-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Pursuant to the claim made by the learned counsel

          for the petitioner earlier that they have solemnized marriage and

          now living as husband and wife.

                       5. This Court wanted them to mark their presence

          while granting interim protection to the petitioner.

                       6. Today on call, it has been informed that the

          petitioner is not there, though, the victim girl is present.

                       7. This Court had conversation with the victim girl

          and she has supported the prosecution story and further

          informed that the statement earlier she gave, it was under

          coercion.

                       8. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

          that he is a young boy of 20 years and is a student, learned

          counsel representing the informant submits that a minor girl was

          taken away without her consent.

                       9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not

          inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner which is accordingly rejected.

                       10. If the petitioner surrenders within a period of four

          weeks from today, the Court concerned shall see the fact that he

          is a young boy of 20 years, the criminal antecedent that reflects

          in para-03 has actually been lodged by the same informant while
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9884 of 2026(3) dt.25-03-2026
                                                         3/3




                       deciding the case without being prejudiced by any of the

                       observation made herein and preferably on the same day.



                                                      (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…