Chandan Prajapati @ Chandan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6083 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Chandan Prajapati @ Chandan Son of Balgobind Prajapati Resident of Village- Karmchar, P.S.- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 87 and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this petitioner, along with co-accused Sumit Gond, took away the minor niece of informant to the house of co-accused Karim Ansari and thereafter, she went missing.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6083 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/2 merely on suspicion. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he, along with co-accused Sumit Gond, took away minor niece of the informant to the house of co-accused Karim Ansari. During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she has supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated that this petitioner, along with coaccused Sumit Gond, took her to the house of co-accused Karim Ansari and thereafter, co-accused Karim Ansari forcibly solemnized marriage with her and established physical relations.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T