Jaiki Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25470 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Jaiki Kumar, S/o Satan Rai, R/o Village - Western Balua, P.S - Doriganj, District - Saran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X S/o Y R/o Village - Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S - Sonpur, District - Saran ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No.453 of 2025 registered under Sections 96, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNS').

3. As per FIR, petitioner alleged to kidnap the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with another person.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as this petitioner was in talking terms with the daughter of informant, out of said suspicions present

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25470 of 2026(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/3 false case was lodged without having any cogent materials. In this context, it is further submitted that this fact can be gathered safely from the statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, where she narrated altogether different facts saying that as her father assaulted her due to excessive use of mobile, she left her parental home on her own and went to the house of maternal aunty on 10.05.2025 at Ranchi. It is further submitted that victim is not even named this petitioner and completely falsify the case of prosecution. While concluding the argument, it is further submitted that now the good sense prevails between the parties and the differences which was the reason for the suspicions now settled. Moreover, petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.

6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact, as victim after recovery completely negate the prosecution story and also any involvement of this petitioner, as she could not even named this petitioner while recording her statement under Section 183 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25470 of 2026(3) dt.16-07-2026 3/3 BNSS, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, who is a man of clean antecedent, is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No.453 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Raushan/- U T