Rohan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9773 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Rohan Kumar Son of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, PsVaishali, Dist- Vaishali 2.
Punam Devi Wife of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, PsVaishali, Dist- Vaishali 3.
Rahul Kumar son of Shambhu Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, PsVaishali, Dist- Vaishali 4.
Usha Devi Wife of Sudhir Kumar Resident of Village - Dighi Kala West PsSadar Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali 5.
Sudhir Kumar son of Baleshwar Ram Resident of Village - Dighi Kala West Ps- Sadar Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali 6.
Sita Devi Wfie of Manoj Ram Resident of Village -Padmaul, Ps- Kudhani, Dist- Muzaffarpur 7.
Manoj Ram Son of Late Luruk Ram Resident of Village -Padmaul, PsKudhani, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sarshwati Devi Wife of Surya Kant Ram Resident of Village - Mataiya, PsVaishali, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9773 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026 2/3 the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner nos.2, 4 and 6 are women and the informant alleges that her neighbour and his relative including the petitioners enticed her minor daughter aged about 17 years and took her to Kolkata at their aunt's house. Further, she went to the house of Rohan Kumar to enquire, when she was abused, thus alleges that accused might commit the wrong with her daughter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being related to Rohan. It is also submitted that victim came back and her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS and she has not supported the case of the prosecution rather has stated that she was not kidnapped by anyone and she was annoyed with her father and brother, thus she went to the house of her sister namely Anu Kumari at Digha, Vaishali. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting, then the victim had reached the age of discretion and has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that though victim has not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9773 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026 3/3 supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, but then, parents of the victim have denied the truthfulness of the statement given by the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.
6. Since the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Vaishali P. S. Case No.471 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T