Santosh Jayswal @ Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2026

    0
    5
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Patna High Court – Orders

    Santosh Jayswal @ Santosh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2026

    Author: Anshuman

    Bench: Anshuman

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32648 of 2026
                             Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- Balwahat District- Saharsa
                     ======================================================
                     Santosh Jayswal @ Santosh Kumar S/O Maheshwari Chaudhari, Resident of
                     Village- Saroja, P.S. Balwahat, District- Saharsa.
    
                                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                             Versus
    
               1.    The State of Bihar
               2.    XXXX D/O Shyam Bhagat, R/O Village- Magurjaan, Ward No. 9, P.S.-
                     Kothi, Distt.- Purnia.
    
                                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
                     For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
                     For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                           ORAL ORDER
    
    3   23-07-2026

    Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

    counsel for the Informant and learned APP for the State.

    SPONSORED

    2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has

    been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

    Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS,

    2023’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner who is in

    custody in connection with Balwahat P.S. Case No. 2 of 2026,

    lodged on 02/01/2026, under Sections 64, 69 and 3(5) of the

    Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 4 and 6 of the

    POCSO Act and under Sections 9/10/11 of the Child Marriage

    Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of the learned Special

    Judge (POCSO) Saharsa.

    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32648 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026
    2/4

    3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged by

    the victim, who has categorically stated before the police, that

    her father was forcefully interested to marry her with an old

    aged person, due to this reason she went with her sister at her

    house. Subsequently, at the instance of her sister the marriage

    was solemnized with the petitioner. She has narrated that for this

    marriage, her sister has talked with the father also. This case

    was registered primarily under the violation of Child Marriage

    Act for violation of Sections 9,10 and 11, but in the FIR

    Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act has also been added.

    4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

    petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

    submits that it is true that the alleged victim/informant is minor,

    but he submits that in this marriage the consent of the entire

    family members of the victim was involved. Counsel submits

    that in the entire case diary there is nothing against him and

    ingredients of POCSO Act is not there. Counsel submits that for

    the sake of argument even it is accepted that offence is made out

    under prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, then also the

    punishment is of two years with fine which may be extended up

    to rupees one lakh or both. Counsel submits that the ingredients

    of POCSO is not there. Counsel submits that on the previous
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32648 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026
    3/4

    occasion, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to call for the

    case diary as well as statement of the said victim girl, under

    Section 183 of the BNSS, by which everything shall be clear.

    Counsel submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is

    clean. Counsel further submits that petitioner is ready to fulfill

    all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

    5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

    informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits

    that the petitioner is at fault, there was no consent of the father

    for this marriage. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor and,

    therefore, the question of consent or no consent of the petitioner

    shall not arise and the petitioner be continue in custody.

    6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,

    opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner but fairly submits

    that it is a unique case in which the allegation of marriage with

    minor has been alleged in the FIR and primarily case has been

    lodged under the prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

    Counsel further submits that for the addition of Sections 4 and 6

    of the POCSO Act, statement of the victim under Section 183 is

    necessary that what she had adduced before the Magistrate.

    Statement of victim under Section 183 has been called for and is

    attached. In her statement under Section 183, the victim has
    Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32648 of 2026(3) dt.23-07-2026
    4/4

    narrated and alleged against her mother but not alleged against

    the petitioner; rather categorically stated that there was no

    physical relation developed between the petitioner and the

    informant.

    7. The SDJM had recorded the statement under

    Section 183 of the BNSS and categorically observed that the

    victim has narrated the statement before the Court without any

    fear or coercion.

    8. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that

    prima facie, the allegation of POCSO is not there and protection

    of Child Marriage is only attracted in which two years

    punishment is there and the petitioner is in custody since

    06/04/2026, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail

    on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

    Thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the BNSS, 2023

    to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Saharsa,

    in connection with Balwahat P.S. Case No. 2 of 2026 subject to

    the conditions as laid down U/s 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023.

    
    
    
                                                                       (Dr. Anshuman, J)
    Mkr./Anshuman/
    
    U     T
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here