The court determined that lack of evidence implicating petitioners warrants pre-arrest bail despite serious allegations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case No. 152/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2),115(2),109, 96, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the co-

accused namely, Karan Tani, who is brother of the petitioners, had lured away the minor daughter of the informant, who was aged about 17 years, 2 months and 11 days, with an intention to perform marriage with her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case because they are brother and sister of the co-accused Karan Tanti, who is in jail, who has just emerged as an adult and natural attraction for the opposite sex cannot be denied coupled with the several psychological and physiological change person undergo. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the concerned magistrate, has stated that she has performed marriage with the co-accused Karan Tanti and they are residing as husband ad wife as would appear from the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioners are nowhere connected with the alleged offence and are innocent. Other co- accused namely, Sitaram Tanti and Sita Devi have been granted pre-arrest bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64579 of 2025. The petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. However, he submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has not supported the prosecution story.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, it is unsound to hear that a 19 years old boy, who was unaware of the seriousness of the allegation, had solemnized marriage with the minor daughter of the informant, has been taken into custody. Consideration in this regard can be made in light of the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr. vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 317. The petitioners are own brother and sister of the co- accused Karan Tanti and they have clean antecedent. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the concerned magistrate, has stated that she has performed marriage with the co-accused Karan Tanti and they are residing as husband ad wife as would appear from the impugned order. Other co-accused namely, Sitaram Tanti and Sita Devi have been granted pre-arrest bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64579 of 2025. I am of the opinion that petitioners have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending in connection with Nathnagar P.S. Case No. 152/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The