Patna High Court
Anant Kumar Ram @ Anant RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that there was no fresh ground to grant bail and therefore dismissed the bail application.
Summary
Anant Kumar Ram, a worker at a home for mentally and physically disabled children, was charged under Sections 120B, 201, 323, 342, 377 of the IPC, Sections 6, 9, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 75, 82 and 85 of the Juvenile Justice Act for alleged abuse and failure to forward complaints of child victims. He has been in custody since 5 August 2023 and has filed three regular bail applications, the first two of which were rejected on 29 February 2024 and 11 April 2025. The State and the CBI opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences involving vulnerable children. The Patna High Court, noting that the trial had only begun, only one witness had been examined, and no fresh ground for bail existed, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application. The court directed the CBI to produce remaining witnesses promptly and the trial judge to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with serious offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
- Whether the commencement of trial and lack of fresh ground justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prolonged custody and alleged non‑cooperation affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 323, 342, 377
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 75, 82, 85
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 17, 6, 9
Subjects
- bail
- criminal conspiracy
- child sexual abuse
- juvenile justice
- trial delay
- CBI
- high court
- regular bail
- serious offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13987 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2018 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Anant Kumar Ram @ Anant Ram S/o Late Basudeo Ram Resident Of
Village- Bhawanpura, P.S.- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hafiz Shahbaz Arif, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Niranjan Chatterjee, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. This is the third attempt of the petitioner for grant of
regular bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No.
96/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
120(B), 201, 323, 342, 377 of I.P.C. and Sections 6,9,10 and 17 of
POCSO Act and Sections 75, 82 and 85 of the J.J. Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the has been rejected
twice vide orders dated 29.02.2024 and 11.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 77992/2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 66922/2024 respectively.
4. This Court on 29.02.2024 had passed the following
order:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13987 of 2026(3) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
“ Heard learned senior counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for the CBI and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 96 of 2018
registered for the offence under Section 120-B, 201,
323, 342, 377 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section
6, 9, 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act and under Section
75, 82 and 85 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner was working in a children home where the
mentally and physically disabled children used to live
and the allegation against the petitioner is that he does
not forward the complaints of the victim children to
the higher authorities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits
that the main accused in this case is one Parwej Das.
5. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail
since 5.8.2023.
6. Learned APP for the State assisted by
learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed
the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail by
contending that petitioner may not be granted bail by
this Court as he is involved in the abuse of minor
children who are physically and mentally disabled.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13987 of 2026(3) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
9. The trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the
earliest. If there is no sufficient progress in the trial
due to the fault of the prosecution side then the
petitioner may renew his prayer for grant of bail. ”
5. The petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2023.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that after the order of this
Court, only one witness has been examined.
6. Considering the fact that the trial has started and no
fresh ground for review is made out, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The C.B.I. is directed to produce the witnesses on the
dates fixed and will ensure that there is no delay in the trial. The
Trial Judge is also directed to give short dates and will examine
the witnesses on the dates so fixed.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated through
FAX or e-mail to the Principal District Judge, Bhagalpur for its
compliance.
9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…