Anu Ram @ Anu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33252 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-972 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Anu Ram @ Anu Kumar S/o Ram Chandra Ram Resident of Village - Balganga, P.S. - Raghunathpur, District - East Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

XXX Wife of YYY Resident of Village - Balganga, P.S. - Raghunathpur, District - East Champaran.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶13

counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur) P.S. Case No. 972 of 2023 lodged on 14.09.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari.

¶15

As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present petitioner.

¶16

Prosecution case in brief is that, on 26.08.2023 at about 9:00 A.M., the petitioner had kidnapped the minor

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33252 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/3

¶18

daughter of the informant when she was on the way to school. When the informant got the knowledge about the incident, she went to the house of the petitioner, where the other accused persons misbehaved and pushed her out. She has firm believe that the accused persons might have kidnapped her minor daughter with ill intention.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a variance in the statement of the victim and she went to Tamil Nadu not on allurement but on her own consent.

¶20

Counsel for informant submits that there is specific allegation in respect to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned A.P.P for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Having heard the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that the statement of the victim U/s 164 indicate to the fact that the victim went to TamilNadu with the accused petitioner where she remained with him. Since the victim is a minor, the consent of a minor cannot be considered as a vaild consent under the law, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33252 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 3/3

¶25

However, if petitioner surrenders before the concerned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his surrender-cum-bail application without being prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of this case.

¶26

(Alok Kumar, J)

¶27

Bipin/-

¶28

U T

Anu Ram @ Anu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu Ram @ Anu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Ramashish Mehta Vs The State of Bihar

Ruchi Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Govind Kumar @ Govind Dome @ Govinda Kumar @ Govinda Dome Vs The State of Bihar

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Giri Vs The State of Bihar