Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30392/2026bail granted

Chiku Sharma @ Chiku Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-24Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30392 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui ====================================================== Chiku Sharma @ Chiku Kumar S/o Late Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Mishtri R/o - Matia Panchponiya Tola, P.S - Laxmipur, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 for the offence punishable under sections 366 of the IPC lodged by the informant.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he enticed away the wife of the informant along with her three children and cash of Rs. 3 Lacs including jewellery. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against this petitioner is of having taken away the wife of the informant having three children, who left the house with Rs. 3 Lacs cash and jewellery with the intention to marry

2/4 with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the second marriage is impermissible and the entire allegation is false and frivolous and a compromise has also been arrived at between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that the wife of the informant out of her own free will had left her house and stayed with this petitioner and no pressure was ever exerted upon the victim by this petitioner to leave her house. It has next been submitted that the statement of the victim under section 183 BNSS was recorded wherein, she, under the pressure of the informant, has alleged that the petitioner by luring her enticed her away and also took Rs. 3 Lacs cash and stated that the compromise so done was under pressure. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has got clean antecedent and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and would not try to tamper with the evidence, in case he is granted privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, submits that a lady having three children cannot be lured and enticed away easily.

6. Considering the nature of allegation and there is already a compromise having been arrived between the parties, though subsequently doubted by the informant, the petitioner

3/4 has got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Bhavika Sinha, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui/the court concerned in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

4/4 (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T