Patna High Court
Ashutosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the allegations are improbable, the parties have reconciled, and there is insufficient material to justify continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashutosh Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he married the minor daughter of the informant and subsequently refused to return her to her parental home, invoking offences under the B.N.S., D.P. Act, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act. The petitioner contended that the marriage was consensual, the alleged victim is now over nineteen years old, and therefore the provisions of the POCSO and SC/ST Acts are inapplicable; he also argued that the FIR was filed after an unreasonable delay and that the parties have reached a compromise. The State and the informant opposed the bail, maintaining that the allegations remain serious. The court examined the improbability of the accusations, the existence of a marital relationship, the lack of material evidence, and the compromise between the parties. Considering these factors, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with specified conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other directions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for offences under the B.N.S., D.P. Act, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act apply when the alleged victim is above nineteen years of age.
- Whether the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provisions are applicable in view of the marriage between the petitioner and the informant’s daughter.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of material evidence justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- marriage
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- compromise
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16140 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
Ashutosh Kumar Son of Shri Prem Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village-
Konch, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Punam Devi Wife of Dilip Ram, Resident of Village- Mayurwa, P.S.-
Treveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rabia Gulnaz, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
For the Informant : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No.
199 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 64(1) and 85 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.,
2023 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act and Sections 4 and 8 of
POCSO Act and Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(w) and 3(2)(va) of
the SC/ST Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the informant has
instituted the present case on the basis of a written report
wherein she stated that the petitioner established physical
relationship with her minor daughter giving inducement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16140 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
2/4
marriage. Thereafter, on 17.09.2024, marriage was solemnized
between the petitioner and the daughter of the informant.
Further allegation has been made by the informant that the
petitioner did not take back her daughter after marriage and
when the informant with her family members went to the
matrimonial home of her daughter, the entry of her daughter was
opposed by the family members of the petitioner, who taking
her caste name refused to take the daughter of informant in their
house. Thereafter, the informant lodged this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. The victim has solemnized marriage with the petitioner
and she is residing in her matrimonial home. She is the legally
married wife of the petitioner and this falsifies the allegation of
rape as it was a consensual relationship after marriage. Learned
counsel further submits that as the petitioner went to his work
place and some delay occurred in taking back the daughter of
the informant to her matrimonial home, under some
apprehension, the informant has lodged this false case. Learned
counsel further submits that the alleged victim is aged above
nineteen years and there could be no application of Sections 4
and 8 of POCSO Act in the present case. Similarly, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16140 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
3/4
allegation under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act is also not
believable as the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the
daughter of the informant. Learned counsel further submits that
there is no force in the allegation of the informant as there is no
cogent material and FIR has been lodged after much delay.
Since the daughter of the informant has been staying in her
matrimonial home with the petitioner, who is a school teacher, a
compromise has already been arrived at between the parties and
informant is not willing to pursue the matter any further.
Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is having
clean antecedent.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the informant submits that the informant does not oppose the
prayer for bail as matrimonial relationship has been restored
between the parties and a compromise has also been arrived at.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
improbable nature of accusation and further considering the
relationship of the daughter of the informant as well as the
petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the event of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16140 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
4/4
arrest or surrender before the Court concerned within a period of
eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Exclusive Special Judge POCO-cum-District & Additional
Session Judge-VII, Gayajee, in connection with Tekari P.S.
Case No. 199 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the
learned trial Court.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T
Checking your session…