Pappu Sharma @ Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32389 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Pappu Sharma @ Pappu Kumar S/o Ram Nivas Sharma Resident of VillageBanher @ Benhar, P.S.- Morkahi, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate Ms. Mona Verma, Advocate Mr. Chitranjan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Morkahi P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025 for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 87 and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to the effect that his daughter was cleaning the front door of her house, in the meantime, the petitioner along with other coaccused and 2-3 unknown persons, armed with weapons, stopped their car on the road in front of the informant's house and by showing the weapons, they forcibly caught hold of the
2/4 daughter of the informant and dragged her in the vehicle and fled away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. The entire prosecution story is false and concocted. He further submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 21.04.2025, however the First Information Report was lodged on 26.04.2025 and no explanation has been given by the informant for the delay in lodging the First Information Report. He further submits that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. has said that she herself went with Pappu Sharma for the purposes of marriage and even she solemnized marriage with the petitioner herein. He further submits that the victim girl has refused to go for medical check-up. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the daughter of the informant and the petitioner were in love with each other and they have already solemnized marriage and on account of the same, the present First Information Report has been lodged. The petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. Per Contra, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner kidnapped the
3/4 daughter of the informant from her home for the purposes of marriage.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that during course of investigation, the daughter of the informant was recovered and she gave her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., wherein she specifically said that she called the petitioner on his phone and on her request, the petitioner came there and both of them fled away. She married the petitioner at a temple in Prayagraj and later on before the competent court at Ghaziabad. She has further said that she wants to live with her husband and she stated her age to be of 20 years. Further, she has refused to go for medical examination.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail 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 A.C.J.M., 1st, Khagaria in connection with Morkahi P.S. Case No.55 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S with a further condition that:- The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
4/4 antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T