Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14939 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mali S/o Mithilesh Mali @ Mithilesh Bhagat R/O Village- Saryu Tola, P.S.-Baghaila, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s:

Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 442 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., petitioner is said to have run away with the wife of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the wife of the informant had willingly accompanied the petitioner and she has not made any complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Joseph Shine v.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14939 of 2026(4) dt.08-07-2026 2/2 Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, wherein the Apex Court has held that Section 497 IPC is violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution being manifestly arbitrary, gender discriminatory, encroachment into women's identity, dignity, liberty, privacy, sexual autonomy, freedom to make independent choice in matters of sexuality, hence struck down as unconstitutional.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the F.I.R., learned District Court is directed to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner by applying the principles laid down in the case of Joseph Shine (supra) and pass a fresh reasoned order without being prejudiced by any observation made in the present order and the impugned order.

7. The bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T