Rajan Kumar Yadav @ Rajan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37887 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2025 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== RAJAN KUMAR YADAV @ RAJAN YADAV Son of Shivram Yadav Resident of Village- Lalganj, P.S.- Keoti, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 96 and 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his minor daughter aged about 15 years was kidnapped by the petitioner along with others with an intent to selling her or compelling her into immoral activity. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is a young boy aged about 20 years and the informant in the FIR alleges that his

2/4 daughter is a minor aged about 15 years, but then during the course of investigation at para-42 of the case diary, it has come based on the school certificate of the victim that her date of birth is recorded as 30-4-2008 and the occurrence is alleged to have been committed in the year 2025, as such on the date of occurrence the victim was more than 17 years and thus had reached the age of discretion.

It is further submitted that victim came back and her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she has supported the case of the prosecution but then has stated that she came in touch with the petitioner in the year 2024 and thereafter they started talking and the petitioner asked her to flee from the house as such she left her house with the petitioner and he brought her to Darbhanga railway station but thereafter the friend of the petitioner took her to Hydrabad, where he came to know that a case has been instituted against them as such they brought her back to Darbhanga.

3/4 physically exploited her. It is next submitted that she went to Hydrabad with friend of the petitioner but then did not raise any alarm which amply demonstrates that the victim was known to the friend of the petitioner and they left together. It is further submitted that both petitioner and the victim are of impressionable age and if petitioner in the nature of allegation is sent to judicial custody moreso when the victim has not alleged any overt-act against the petitioner, in that event his entire career would get jeopardized and the chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that though submission has been made with respect to date of birth and statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, but then case diary has not been called for, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has a copy of the case diary as such was directed to show the same to the learned APP and the learned APP after perusing the case diary also does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on

4/4 behalf of the petitioner.

6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 300 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7.

One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, namely, Shivram Yadav.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T