Amarjeet Paswan @ Amarjit Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13810 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- BARAHAT District- Banka ====================================================== Amarjeet Paswan @ Amarjit Paswan S/o Mahananad Paswan Resident of Village - Charwa, P.S - Barahat, District - Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Toofani Paswan S/o Munilal Paswan Resident of Village - Charwa, P.S - Barahat, District - Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.52436 of 2025 arising out of Barahat P.S. Case No.41 of 2025.

3. Earlier ground taken by the petitioner, who happens to be the father of the victim girl, was that his daughter was not recovered by the police which does not seem to be a correct fact as the order granting bail clearly records that after recovery, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and she has agreed to go to her matrimonial household as she was married to the petitioner (the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13810 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 opposite party no.2 herein). An additional ground of threatening the petitioner has also been alleged and to buttress such argument a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record a complaint case filed against the opposite party no.2, who was the petitioner in the earlier case.

4. After having gone through the entire records, I find that the victim had voluntarily gone along with the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner, being her father, has already taken recourse to filing a complaint, which would be pursued by him and the same would be proceeded with in accordance with law. However, I do not find any reason to cancel the bail already granted to the opposite party no.2 as during the hearing of the bail application the counsel for the informant was also present and it was recorded in their presence that the victim and the opposite party no.2 were married to each other with the consent of the parents. As such, the present application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T