Sajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11059 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-447 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Sajan Kumar Son of Sanjay Khalifa R/O Village- Nadailghat, P.S.- Bakhari, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bakhari P.S. Case No.447 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(4), 61(2), 64 & 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the ITP Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that police received an information that the petitioner along with others were carrying girls forcefully and were assaulting them. On this information, police reached there. It is further alleged that petitioner along with others was arrested and two ladies were also arrested.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the FIR it will transpire that the main thrust of allegation is against the father of the petitioner as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11059 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026 2/2 he was indulged in the offence of human trafficking and prostitution thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during course of investigation both the victim who were arrested have given their statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and they have not implicated anything except that the petitioner has caught one of the victim while she was attempting to flee away.

5. Countering this, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that victim Pushpa Devi has specifically stated that when she was attempting to flee away, she was being caught by the petitioner and was brought to the house where they were forced to do prostitution. Learned APP has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that of harboring the victims from moving away from the house.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T