Allowed¶17

Niranjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Feb 2026CR. MISC./75142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.75142 of 2025, decided 23-02-2026 by Soni Shrivastava, J.: bail granted to Niranjan Kumar accused under Sections 143 (5) of B.N.S and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act (Dehri on Sone Rail P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025, District Gaya); Court held the allegation of transporting 12 minor girls to a Tamil Nadu spinning mill amounted at best to arranging employment for wages, not human trafficking; bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each imposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged 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 Court below where the case is pending/successor Court. ¶17

Niranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, alleged of transporting 12 minor girls by promising them employment in a spinning mill in Tamil Nadu in a case under Sections 143 (5) of B.N.S and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Court's answer

On consideration of the facts and circumstances, there is no allegation in the nature of human trafficking against the petitioner; the allegation at best indicates getting employment to the victims in a spinning mill for earning money.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Patna High Court (Soni Shrivastava, J.), 23-02-2026, Criminal Miscellaneous No.75142 of 2025 arising out of Dehri on Sone Rail P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 (District Gaya), for offences punishable under Sections 143 (5) of B.N.S and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act. Prosecution alleged the petitioner of transporting 12 minor girls by promising them employment in a spinning mill in Tamil Nadu. Counsel argued the petitioner merely helped the victims seek employment; case diary paragraphs 96 and 97 recorded the victims stating their parents sent them for wages, that the petitioner worked alongside them in the mill, that no untoward talk occurred, and that they continued working there. Petitioner in custody since 10.05.2025, no criminal antecedent, charge sheet submitted; learned APP opposed bail. Holding there was no allegation in the nature of human trafficking and the allegation at best indicated getting employment to the victims for earning money, the Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75142 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- DEHRI ON SONE RAIL P.S. DistrictGaya

¶3

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

¶4

Niranjan Kumar S/O Vijendra Paswan @ Bijendra Paswan R/O VillageNathoudha, P.S- Masaudhi, Distt.- Patna. At present residing at Delhapar, Ward No. 4, Rentpar, Distt.- Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate Mr. Kumarshankaram, Advocate Mr. Awanish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

4 23-02-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶10

for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143 (5) of B.N.S and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was transporting 12 minor girls by promising them employment in a spinning mill in Tamil Nadu.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case making allegation of human trafficking whereas, at best, the petitioner had only helped the victims and their family by letting them seek employment in a spinning mill located at Tamil Nadu as has been alleged in the First Information Report itself. Even during the course of investigation, the victim girls have stated that their parents and

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75142 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026 2/2

¶15

family members in lieu of money that they would earn by working in the spinning mill, had sent them along with the petitioner. Paragraphs 96 and 97 of the case diary further indicates that upon being asked about the petitioner, victims had stated that he was also working along with them in the mill and no untoward talk had happened between them and that they are still working in the mill as labour on account of talks between the family. The petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted.

¶16

Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.

¶17

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no allegation in the nature of human trafficking against the petitioner rather the allegation at best indicates getting employment to the victims in a spinning mill for earning money, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Rail Gaya P.S. Case No. 2125 of 2025.

¶18

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶19

vashudha/-

¶20

U T

Niranjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan 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

Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mantosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Gond @ Anil Gond Vs The State of Bihar

Tanikan Bind @ Tanik Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Farzana Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar