Bittu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9884 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2025 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Bittu Kumar S/o Sanjay Chandravanshi Resident of Village - Panti, P.S.- Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Binay Pal S/o Baiju Pal R/o Village - Pokhrahin, P.S - Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP For the informant :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State as also Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case no. 333 of 2025 for the offence under section 137 (2), 96 B.N.S. and under Section 8/12 POCSO Act lodged on 22.11.2025 by the informant, Vinay Pal.

3. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner took away the minor girl of the complainant for the purpose of marriage. This led to institution of Nabinagar P.S. Case no. 333 of 2025.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9884 of 2026(3) dt.25-03-2026 2/3

4. Pursuant to the claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner earlier that they have solemnized marriage and now living as husband and wife.

5. This Court wanted them to mark their presence while granting interim protection to the petitioner.

6. Today on call, it has been informed that the petitioner is not there, though, the victim girl is present.

7. This Court had conversation with the victim girl and she has supported the prosecution story and further informed that the statement earlier she gave, it was under coercion.

8. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a young boy of 20 years and is a student, learned counsel representing the informant submits that a minor girl was taken away without her consent.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner which is accordingly rejected.

10. If the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall see the fact that he is a young boy of 20 years, the criminal antecedent that reflects in para-03 has actually been lodged by the same informant while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9884 of 2026(3) dt.25-03-2026 3/3 deciding the case without being prejudiced by any of the observation made herein and preferably on the same day. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T