In Nikhil Kumar @ Paras vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a 5-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein, it allowed appeal, setting aside 2-page long order by Justice Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court dated August 13, 2025. The order concluded:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 of BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 13.08.2025. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties."
An FIR was lodged against two named accused persons, including the appellant, with the allegation that they kidnapped the daughter of the informant. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged victim was recovered and has given her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. before the police and under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she did not make any allegation against anyone, rather, she disclosed that she had left the house of her own will. He also submitted that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner was clean.
Justice Dr. Anshuman had observed: "6. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the victim is a minor, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected."
Apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to FIR of 2024 dated June 3, 2024 lodged with P.S. Wajirganj, District Gaya in respect of the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order, the instant appeal was preferred.
Section 366 A of IPC deals with procuration of minor girl. It reads: "Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Punishment procuration of minor girl 10 years and fine. It cognizable and non-Bailable which is tried by Court of Session.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the offences alleged against him are wholly false inasmuch as there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the so-called victim who was about 17/18 years of age at the relevant point of time; that in fact there was a marriage between the parties and subsequently owing to a marital dispute a criminal colour has been given to the entire dispute. He submitted that this Court by interim order dated December 3, 2025 had granted protection to the appellant herein subject to his cooperation in the investigation.; that the appellant was cooperating with the investigation. In the circumstances, the interim order may be made absolute.
Supreme Court's prder is apparently based on the fact that the alleged victim had gone with the petitioner of her own will. She had also stated that she married the petitioner and that they developed a physical relationship on 1–2 occasions.
No comments:
Post a Comment