Supreme Court sets aside bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in a case of kidnapping, abduction for marriage from Shivrajpur, Nautan, West Champaran

In Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed 6-page long order dated August 20, 2026, wherein, it set aside the  order dated March 13, 20266 passed by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court. Te Supreme Court concluded:"Having regard to the above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage, pending trial. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The submission on behalf of the appellant was that statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is exculpatory in nature and indicates that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was based on consent. Further, though the allegation is that victim is minor, her Aadhar Card entry reflects that she is an adult. Even otherwise, the age certificate which has been relied upon by the prosecution would reveal that she is well above 17 years. In such circumstances, it is submitted, whether the victim is of the age of consent or not would be determined in trial and, therefore, the appellant who has no previous criminal antecedents is entitled to be released on bail. The counsel for the respondent could not dispute that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim had disclosed a relationship based on consent. 

Earlier, in Ranjit Patel vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated March 13, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for bail in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 340 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sections 137(2), 87, and 3(5) outline criminal charges related to kidnapping, abduction, and joint liability for acts done with a common intention. 

The prosecution case is that the petitioner kidnapped informant’s minor daughter with an intention to marry her. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. He also submitted that there was love affair in between the petitioner and the victim. It was submitted that she went with the petitioner on her own will and solemnized marriage with him in Nepal. It was also submitted that the medical report of the victim does not support the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since July 14, 2025 and has got no criminal antecedent. The APP for the State and the counsel for the informant had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that the victim is a minor girl and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of enticing away the victim for the purpose of marriage. Hence,
the petitioner did not deserve the privilege of bail.