Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court refused bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the minor status of the victim preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, was arrested on 29 November 2025 in connection with a kidnapping and alleged sexual exploitation of a 14‑year‑old girl, as alleged in FIR No. 202/2025. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the minor for the purpose of marriage and possibly sexual intercourse, supported by a medical report indicating hymen rupture. The petitioner contended that he has a clean record, the allegations are fabricated, and the victim’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita does not mention sexual assault. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority, the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the POCSO Act, and the medical findings. The Court, after considering the gravity of the charges and the risk to the minor, refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 3(5), 352, 65(1), 87, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- sexual assault
- minor
- POCSO Act
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11867 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ajay Kumar S/O Ramautar mahto R/O Mohachhi Nain Kamran Tola, P.s.-
Gopalpur, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/O Y R/O Vill.- Moglahiya, P.O.- Sundargava, P.s.- Gopalpur, District-
West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned A.P.P. for
the State as well as Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
29.11.2025 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 202 of
2025, FIR dated 22.11.2025 registered for the offence under
Section 137(2), 87, 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023.
3. According to the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 20.11.2025 at about 08.00 P.M when his
daughter went outside the house to defecate, then the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11867 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
along with other co-accused persons kidnapped her for the
purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the
F.I.R. Infact the victim was in love with the petitioner and the
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 and 183
of BNSS in which she had not stated anything about sexual
assault against the petitioner. He further submits that charge
sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section
65(1), 96 of BNS and under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and
the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 29.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that it
appears from the case diary that age of the victim is about 14
years which suggest that at the time of alleged occurrence she
was minor and apart from that medical report of the victim
suggest that she had been sexually exploited by the petitioner.
The relevant portion of the medical report is quoted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11867 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
hereinbelow:-
“P/V examination-Hymen ruptured.
Old scar not present.
No any injury on private part.
Opinion:- Pathology report spermatozoa not
seen, but on physical examination hymen
ruptured, So Possibility of recent sexual
intercourse can’t be ruled out.”
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025,, pending
in the Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge 6th-cum-
Special Judge, POCSO, Bettiah, West Champaran.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…