Patna High Court
Niraj Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges, given the completed investigation, prolonged pre‑trial detention, and procedural deficiencies.
Summary
The petitioner, Niraj Kumar Paswan, was arrested in connection with offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, based on a FIR in which the alleged victim claimed to be 18 years old. He sought bail, arguing that the victim was his partner, the marriage was not solemnised, and that the POCSO provisions were inapplicable because the victim was an adult and had refused medical examination. The prosecution contended that the seriousness of the charges warranted continued detention. The court noted that the investigation was already completed, the petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and only one prosecution witness had been examined, violating Section 35(ii) of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under CrPC Section 437(3) and BNSS Section 480(3).
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the POCSO Act applies when the alleged victim claims to be 18 years old.
- Whether the completion of investigation and lack of prosecution witnesses justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 61(2), 64 read with 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(3)
- Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 — s. 3, 4
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 35(ii), 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- POCSO
- immoral trafficking
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- investigation
- custody
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1071 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Purnia
======================================================
Niraj Kumar Paswan, S/o- Ramesh Paswan, resident of village-Gulabbagh
Kabristhan Tola P.S.- Sadar, Dist- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X, D/o- Y, R/o- Dighal Bank P.S.- Dighal Bank Dist- Kishanganj
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No.59 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 64 read with 3(5)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’) as
well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Trafficking
(Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’).
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and is
in custody since 27.11.2024.
4. Allegation against petitioner is to push the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1071 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
informant in immoral trafficking activities along with other
named co-accused persons. The informant claimed her age to
be 18 years through FIR.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that the victim was in relationship with petitioner
and when for certain social reasons, their marriage was not
solemnized, the present false implication was raised. It is
submitted that the victim herself refused to join the medical
examination. It is pointed out that in view of the FIR, where
informant herself claimed her age 18 years, the lodging of
present case under POCSO Act appears not convincing.
6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
investigation of this case is already completed, for which,
charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence.
7. It is pointed out that till date only one prosecution
witness was examined in this case, which is in complete
defiance of Section 35(ii) of the POCSO Act, as petitioner is in
custody since 27.11.2024. The petitioner claimed clean
antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1071 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
8. Learned APP opposed the prayer for grant of bail
to the petitioner.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as petitioner remains in custody for more
than one year i.e., since 27.11.2024, coupled with the fact
that investigation of this case is already completed,
accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be
released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-Sixth-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Purnea in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.59 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3)
of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…