SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3405

PATNA HIGH COURT
Partha Sarthy, J
Sunil Ray – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74423 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(APP)

Bail can be granted based on the absence of criminal antecedent, length of custody, and victim's statements.

Headnote:The petitioner sought bail in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2025, registered under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged the abduction of a minor daughter. The Court noted that the victim, now a major, claimed to have left willingly and had not supported the prosecution case in her statement. The Court granted bail considering factors like the length of custody and lack of prior criminal record.

Table of Content
1. court's decision to grant bail based on the totality of circumstances. (Para 6)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.206 of 2025 (arising out of Pothia P.S. Case no.104 of 2025) registered under sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his minor daughter who had gone to her aunt’s house did not return and was not to be found inspite of search. Subsequently a mobile number was discovered in his daughter’s room. On calling the said number, the informant states that the person on the other side disconnected the telephone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation. The daughter of the informant is a major and had gone with the petitioner out of her own free will. She returned and her statement was recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S. wherein she has not supported the prosecution case. It has also come in paragraph no.89 of the case diary that she has refused to undergo medical examination and has categorically stated that the petitioner has not misbehaved with her. The petitioner is in custody since 15.6.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation and specially the contents of the statement recorded in paragraph no.89 of the case diary wherein the victim refused to undergo medical examination, her statement recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the petitioner having remained in custody for 7 months since 15.6.2025, the petitioner not having any criminal antecedent and chargesheet having been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.206 of 2025 (arising out of Pothia P.S. Case no.104 of 2025) 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Kishanganj.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top