The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a young accused in a serious case involving minor abduction and assault, emphasizing that a victim's exonerating statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, coupled with an unexplained delay in FIR registration, warrants protection from arbitrary arrest. This order reinforces the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception, particularly where evidence does not substantiate allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar, a 20-year-old resident of Ward No. 3, Village Khodawandpur, Begusarai, is facing criminal proceedings arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on 11.07.2025. The case was registered as Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025 on 18.07.2025 under Sections 96, 126(2), 115(2), 74, 303 and 351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bihar Nari Shakti (B.N.S.) Act, 2023. The allegations allege that the petitioner enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, and upon inquiry by the mother, both she and her daughter were assaulted.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred on or around 11.07.2025
- The FIR was registered on 18.07.2025, seven days after the alleged occurrence, with no explanation provided for the delay
- The victim, a minor girl, was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 on 25.07.2025
- In her statement, the victim stated she left her house of her own accord due to a dispute with her mother and made no mention of the petitioner being involved in her departure or any assault
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record and is a first-time accused
- The petitioner has been cooperating with the investigation and has not attempted to flee
Procedural History
- 11.07.2025: Alleged incident of enticement and assault
- 18.07.2025: FIR registered at Khodawandpur Police Station, Case No. 67 of 2025
- 25.07.2025: Victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023
- 05.05.2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 28444 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail
- 05.05.2026: Hearing before the Patna High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Kundan Kumar, argued that the petitioner is falsely implicated. He highlighted that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, contains no adverse reference to the petitioner. He further submitted that the seven-day delay in filing the FIR is unexplained and undermines the prosecution’s case. He emphasized the petitioner’s clean antecedents and youth.
For the Respondent: The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajiv Nayan, opposed the bail application, asserting the seriousness of the offences under the B.N.S. Act, 2023, and the need for custodial interrogation. No specific counter-evidence or rebuttal to the victim’s statement was presented.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial court, with conditions including a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of like amount, subject to compliance with court dates and a condition that one surety be a close relative.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the CrPC when the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is exonerating, the FIR is delayed without justification, and there is no corroborative material linking the accused to the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest is not automatic in cases involving non-bailable offences, especially where the victim’s statement does not support the allegations. He cited Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi to emphasize that delay in FIR, particularly in sensitive cases, must be explained and that unexplained delay casts doubt on the prosecution’s version. He further submitted that the absence of any material evidence against the petitioner, combined with his clean record and the victim’s voluntary statement, satisfies the conditions for anticipatory bail.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the offences under the B.N.S. Act, 2023, are grave and involve exploitation of a minor, warranting custodial interrogation. He did not dispute the content of the victim’s statement but argued that the investigation was still ongoing and that the accused might influence witnesses. No affidavit or documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the allegations beyond the FIR.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, which explicitly stated that the girl left her home voluntarily due to a domestic dispute and did not name or implicate the petitioner in any manner. The Court noted that this statement, recorded under a special statutory provision designed to protect the rights of victims, carries significant weight and cannot be ignored.
"The statement of the victim under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, is not only a statutory record but also a critical piece of evidence that directly contradicts the allegations in the FIR."
The Court further observed that the seven-day delay in registering the FIR was not explained by the prosecution. In cases involving minors, prompt reporting is expected, and unexplained delay raises legitimate concerns about the veracity of the allegations. The Court held that in the absence of any independent corroboration, the FIR alone cannot sustain a case for arrest.
The Court also considered the petitioner’s age, clean antecedents, and the fact that he has not attempted to evade the investigation. It noted that the provisions of Section 438 CrPC are designed to prevent misuse of arrest powers, particularly where the evidence does not prima facie justify detention.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial court within eight weeks from the date of this order. He shall furnish a personal bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Manjhaul. One of the sureties must be a close relative. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date fixed and shall not leave Begusarai district without prior permission.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim’s Statement Under Special Statutes Trumps FIR Allegations
- Practitioners must treat statements recorded under special statutory provisions like Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 as pivotal evidence, not mere procedural formalities
- If such statements are exonerating, they can form the basis for anticipatory bail even in serious cases
- Prosecution cannot rely solely on the FIR when the victim’s own account contradicts it
Delay in FIR Must Be Explained - Silence Is Fatal
- Unexplained delays in FIR registration, especially in cases involving minors, are now a recognized ground for granting bail
- Courts will scrutinize the timeline from incident to FIR; absence of justification weakens the prosecution’s case
- Delay beyond 48 - 72 hours without explanation may trigger a presumption of fabrication or malice
Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Privilege - It Is a Right Where Evidence Is Weak
- The Arnesh Kumar principle remains binding: arrest is not automatic even for non-bailable offences
- Clean antecedents, youth, and cooperation with investigation are material factors
- Courts must balance the rights of the accused against the interests of investigation - where the latter lacks substance, bail must follow
