Sharma Kumar @ Jeevan Kumar Yadav @ Jivan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54033 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== SHARMA KUMAR @ JEEVAN KUMAR YADAV @ JIVAN KUMAR S/O LATE LALDEO RAI @ LALDEO RAY R/O HARPUR, SEKHWA TOLA, P.S.- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Parmila Devi W/O Nagendra Giri R/O HARPUR, NAYA TOLA, P.S.- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Meena Singh, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Ranjana Srivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 139, 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of kidnapping the informant's minor daughter on the pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54033 of 2025(4) dt.12-11-2025 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is contradiction between the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has specifically stated that it was co-accused Pramod Kumar who kidnapped her and wanted to forcibly marry her. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being no material against the petitioner in Section 183 B.N.S.S. statement of the victim as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 55 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54033 of 2025(4) dt.12-11-2025 3/3 (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T