Madhuranjan Kumar @ Madhuranjan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41924 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2026 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Madhuranjan Kumar @ Madhuranjan Yadav, S/o Harendra Rai, Resident of Village-Maharani Bairiya, P.S- Kotwa, District- East Champaran (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X, W/o Y, Resident of Village-Maharani Bairiya, P.S.- Kotwa, District- East Champaran (Bihar).

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 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 Kotwa P.S. Case No.67 of 2026 registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 351(2), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'B.N.S.') as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3. As per FIR, petitioner along with named co-accused persons alleged to kidnap the minor daughter of informant aged about 16 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with another person.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that as per FIR, it appears that informant is eye witness

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41924 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026 2/2 of the occurrence but, the FIR in issue was lodged with delay of four days just as an afterthought to implicate this petitioner. It is submitted that the victim daughter of informant was in relationship with one Saroj Kumar and this petitioner has been implicated only being cousin brother. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail referred the impugned order, where it is categorically mentioned that the victim while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS specifically named this petitioner, who after making her unconscious, kidnapped her forcefully along with co-accused persons in a white vehicle, when she was on her way to light a lamp in nearby temple.

6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as victim specifically alleged against this petitioner to involve in her kidnapping while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/- U T