Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9660 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-687 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son of Bhai Lal Rai @ Lal Rai @ Bhai Lal Yadav villageRaghunathpur, Ps- Dhanaura, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Simatri Devi Wife of chaitu Ray village- Anandpur, Ps- Bihta, Dist- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Kanchan Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case dairy.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 687 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 137 and 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner has enticed away informant's minor daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9660 of 2025(3) dt.11-08-2025 2/2 in nature. There is love affair in between victim and the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not kidnapped the victim rather she has went with the petitioner on her own will. The petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the victim and performing marriage with her. It is further submitted that the victim is a minor girl. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T