Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2706/2026dismissed

Md. Jaffar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-28Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2706 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2024 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Md. Jaffar, S/o Md. Taiyab R/o Village - Bank Ward No. 10, P.S - Dandari, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Braj Bhusan Poddar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bachhawara P.S. Case No. 407 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he induced the daughter of the informant and fled away for the purpose of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and, in fact, the petitioner and the victim are distant relatives. It has further been submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has categorically stated that it was she who had called the petitioner to the station and they had gone along with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2706 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2 the petitioner to Delhi and thereafter she even solemnized marriage. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated and the allegations of kidnapping or enticing is false. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that even if, from the statement of the victim, it would appear that she had gone with the petitioner out of her own will but the fact that she is a minor cannot be denied. It has next been submitted that the consent of a minor is no consent and therefore the petitioner should not be given the liberty of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T