Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13010 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- TARAPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/o Upendra Poddar R/o village- Fajeliganj, P.S.- Tarapur, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XXX S/o - YYY Permanent R/o vill - Teldiha, P.S.- Shambhuganj, Distt.- Banka, and at present R/o Kushwaha Colony, Renter in the house of Narmada Singh, P.S- Tarapur, Distt.- Munger ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate Ms. Keertika Sakshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Tarapur P.S. Case no.213 of 2025, registered under section 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his younger daughter, who is aged about 12 years, a student of Class-IV, was not to be found inspite of search. It is further stated that she was in touch with one person whose mobile number is mentioned in the FIR and the said mobile number belongs to the petitioner herein. The informant states that he is convinced that his minor daughter has been kidnapped for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13010 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 2/3 purpose of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner and the informant are neighbours and there is dispute over passage between them which has led to the false implication. The victim girl was recovered and her statement was recorded both under sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. It is stated that besides there being variance in her two statements, in her statement under section 180 of the B.N.S.S., she has stated that she left her house due to the ill treatment of her mother. Even accepting the statement under section 183 of the BNSS, she has stated that she married the co-accused Rahul Raj and not the petitioner herein. The petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the minor victim, who is said to be aged about 12 years, in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S has supported the prosecution case about being kidnapped by the petitioner and the co-accused Rahul Raj.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R together

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13010 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 3/3 with the contents of the statement of the 12 year old victim under section 183 B.N.S.S wherein she states about being kidnapped by the accused persons including the petitioner herein, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T