##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3528 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2025 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran

======================================================

Raju Gupta S/o Late Madan Prasad Gupta R/o Village - Sugauli, Mai Asthan

Ward No. 10, P.S - Sugauli, District - East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. X S/o Late Devki Prasad R/o Village - Langari, Ward No. 7, P.S -

Mainatand, District - West Champaran

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH

ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the

State.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application

for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 8/12 of POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

informant’s daughter left for school but did not return

home in the evening. Despite an intense search by the

informant and family members, it came to notice that she

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3528 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026

2/4

had not attended school on that day. It is further alleged

that a few months prior to the occurrence, co-accused

Sohail and Tanveer had misbehaved with her. It is also

alleged that about five months ago, the informant’s elder

daughter was married to the petitioner, giving rise to the

suspicion that the petitioner, along with the other co-

accused persons, abducted the informant’s daughter, who

is also his sister-in-law.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has

been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further

contended that after the marriage, the relationship

between the petitioner and his wife (victim’s elder sister

and informant’s daughter) became strained and petitioner

had instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights

against his wife and only with a view to pressurize the

petitioner, the present false case has been lodged by the

informant, who is the petitioner’s father-in-law. Learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3528 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026

3/4

counsel further submits that there are material

contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded

under Section 180 of the BNSS and her statement under

Section 183 of the BNSS. According to the petitioner, he

has not committed any wrong with the victim. Moreover,

the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since

06.10.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State as well

as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently

opposed the prayer for Bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances

of the case as well as period of custody, this Court is

inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above

named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in

connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 126 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3528 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026

4/4

Sessions Judge VII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bettiah,

West Champaran.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

Nirajkrs/-

U T