Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2965 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Kumar Mahto S/o Raj Kumar Mahto R/o Village - Loknathpur Ganj (Dalasingsarai), P.S - Dalasingsarai, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sunita Devi W/o Mukesh Kumar Patel R/o Village - Agarer Kala, P.S - Suryapura, District - Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2026 Despite valid service of notice upon Opposite Party no.2, no one appeared on behalf of Opposite Party no.2.
2. Heard Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.08.2025 in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 246 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 22.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 4/6 of POCSO Act.
4. According to prosecution case, an unknown person kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2965 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026 2/3 of marriage or illicit intercourse.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she did not support the case of the prosecution and apart from that the victim has also refused for her medical examination. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth-cum-Special Court (POCSO), Rohtas in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 246 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2965 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026 3/3 properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T