Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14087 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- SIGAUDI District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar S/o Rajdev Mochi Resident of Village- Bibipur, P.S.- Sigori, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Krishna Deo Raj, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP-34 For the O.P. No. 2 :
Ankita Singh, Advocate.
====================================================== 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 seeks bail in connection with Sigori P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section-140(3) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the daughter of the informant had gone to fill up bona fide form but she did not return for a considerable time. She was being searched. During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and her statement under the provisions of Section-183 of the BNSS was recorded wherein she has stated that she was in rrelationmship with the petitioner. He called her to Patna and when she came Patna, the petitioner refused to marry her and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14087 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026 2/3 asked her to return home. It is further alleged that while she was crying at the station, a lady arrived there wap was related with the petitioner whose name was Soni Devi. It is further alleged that the petitioner sold her to Soni Devi and the said Soni Devi got solemnized her marriage with one Manoj Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation, the police recorded the statement of the petitioner wherein he has stated that he was at Rajasthan for earning his livelihood and was on talking term with the victim but he has not kidnapper her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted further that during course of investigation, it has come that the petitioner was living at Jaypur, Rajasthan for earning his livelihood.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim has categorically stated that this petitioner has sold her to one lady Sona Devi. The allegation against the petitioner is of human trafficking and the defence which has been taken by the petitioner is not substantiated as he has not brought any proof as to where he was working on the date of occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14087 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026 3/3 at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the same is rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. The learned trial court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial of the petitioner expeditiously. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T