Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2774 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Paswan son of Late Suresh Paswan Resident Of Village- Lakhnipur Maheshpatti P.s -Ujiarpur Distt- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Md. Safiq son of Late Md. Amir Resident Of Village- Lakhnipur Maheshpatti P.s -Ujiarpur Distt- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kedar Jha, Advocate For the S t a t e :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP For the I n f o r m a n t :

Mr Abhishek Kr, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 96 of the BNS.

3 The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with others kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant while she had gone to the pond to collect grass. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, the statements of the victim have been recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. In her statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, she has stated that she was having relationship with the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2774 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026 2/3 and that they had also talks with each other which is clear from the CDR. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim has developed the story that the petitioner had sold her to one Barilal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that both these statements are contradictory to each other. It is further submitted that age of the victim has not been determined and only Aadhar Card has been filed for the age proof. It is also submitted that in this case there are two statements, one recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and the other recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS has not been recorded properly by the police as there is no audio or videography whereas the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS is properly recorded by the Magistrate and in that statement, the victim has categorically stated that the petitioner had sold her for Rs 1,20,000/- to one Barilal.

5 Mr Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing for the State and Mr Abhishek Kr, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that it is a clear cut case of human trafficking. 6 A report was called for from the trial Court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2774 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026 3/3 regarding the stage of trial. From perusal of the report, it is clear that altogether three witnesses have been examined. 7 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 8 However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. 9 The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within the said time frame.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) M.E.H./- U T