← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./77430/2025bail granted

Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-21Mr. Justice S. B. P. Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77430 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Pawan Kumar S/O Satyendra Das R/O Vill.- Kendua, Raniganj, P.S.- Imamganj, Dist.- Gaya .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 96 of BNS.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Sarita Devi has alleged that on 23.07.2025 at about 09:00 A.M., her minor daughter, Neha Kumari, aged about 16 years, a student of Class IX, left her house for studying at the High School situated at village Banshi. When the informant returned home in the evening after agricultural work, she found that her daughter had not returned. Despite making inquiries in the neighbourhood and contacting relatives over the phone, no information regarding the whereabouts of her daughter could be obtained. It is further alleged that on 24.07.2025, the informant came to know that one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77430 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026 2/3 Pawan Kumar, was also missing from his house. The informant suspected that the said Pawan Kumar, in connivance with his associate Sonu Kumar, had enticed and kidnapped her minor daughter with the intention of marrying her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly false, fabricated, and concocted, and no such occurrence ever took place as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, from perusal of same, it clearly transpires that she has not supported the allegation leveled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. The victim has categorically stated that she and Pawan Kumar (the petitioner) were studying together in school, there was love affair between them but no physical relationship was established.

They had mutually decided to go to Delhi to solemnise an inter-caste marriage. She has further denied to have any physical relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that, after completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.07.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77430 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026 3/3 in paragraph 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has clean antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and considering the statement of victim as also the period under custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail after framing of charge on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 subject to the following conditions :- (i). Petitioner will remain physically present in trial on each and every date till the disposal of the case failing which, on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner may be cancelled by the Trial Court. (ii). One of the bailor shall be his family member. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T