Patna High Court

Chandan Kumar Sah @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 March 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner in view of the serious nature of the offences and the minor victim's involvement.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, was arrested on 3 October 2025 in connection with a POCSO case alleging abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor. He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The prosecution argued that the victim, a minor born on 1 January 2008, had given a consistent statement and a medical report indicated possible rape. The court examined the seriousness of the offences under Sections 96 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the victim's testimony. Considering the gravity of the charges and the risk to the minor, the court refused the bail application. The petition for bail was consequently dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor
Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and POCSO Act precludes the grant of bail
Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing the victim

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 96
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
POCSO
child sexual abuse
abduction
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
minor victim

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16703 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Kumar Sah @ Chandan Kumar S/o Mohan Sah R/o vill - Gandhi
                 Nagar, ward no. 18, P.s.- Bagha, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XXX W/o YYY R/o vill - Ghuran, P.S.- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026                    Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the

                petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari,learned A.P.P. for the State.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                03.10.2025, in connection with POCSO Case No. 90/2025 arising

                out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 387/2025, FIR dated 26.07.2025

                registered for the offence under Sections 96, 137(2) of the

                Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO

                Act, 2012.

                               3. Accordingly to the prosecution case, it is alleged

                that the petitioner and other co-accused persons have conspired

                together and abducted the minor daughter of the informant by

                alluring her and taken her away and they have sold her somewhere

                and are making her to do immoral acts.

                               4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16703 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                  been implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. 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. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody

                  since 03.10.2025.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand has

                  vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

                  submits that victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution

                  in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C/183 BNSS and

                  medical report of the victim suggest that the rape cannot be ruled

                  out and apart from that date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2008

                  which suggest that on the alleged date of occurrence she was

                  minor.

                                  6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

                  I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection

                  with Supaul P.S. Case No. 387/2025 pending in the Court of

                  District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO

                  Act, Supaul.

                                          7. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…