Patna High Court

Gautam KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 January 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the supporting evidence warranted continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Gautam Kumar, was arrested on 1 April 2025 in connection with a POCSO case alleging the rape of a 12‑year‑old girl, the informant's daughter. He is charged under Sections 75 and 76 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution presented the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., corroborating witnesses and medical evidence, and opposed bail. The petitioner claimed the FIR was fabricated and asserted his innocence. After considering the seriousness of the offences and the evidentiary material, the court refused the bail application, concluding that the petitioner should remain in custody.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving alleged rape of a minor under Sections 75, 76 of the BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.
Whether the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., along with medical and witness evidence, justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 75, 76
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO
rape of minor
criminal procedure
Section 164 statement
medical evidence
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1794 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2025 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Gautam Kumar Son of Krishan Nandan Singh Village- Khuthadih, P. S. -
                 Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai.
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Dinesh Kumar Son of Sagina Mahto Resident of village - Garh Laxmipur,
                  Ps- Barahiya, Dist- Lakhisarai
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-01-2026                     Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   01.04.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 40 of 2025

                   arising out of Barahiya P.S. Case No. 65 of 2025, F.I.R. dated

                   01.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 75 and

                   76 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

                               3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along

                   with one Raghvendra Singh have committed rape upon the

                   minor daughter of the informant.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1794 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and

                      fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as

                      alleged in the F.I.R.

                                  5.    Learned       Additional          Public   Prosecutor   has

                      vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

                      submits that the statement of the victim was recorded under

                      Section 164 of Cr.P.C/183 of B.N.S.S where she has supported

                      the case of the prosecution. As per the allegation in the F.I.R,

                      this petitioner along with another accused person have

                      committed rape upon the daughter of the informant who is 12

                      year old. Witnesses as well as medical evidence also supported

                      the case of the prosecution.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

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

                      with POCSO Case No. 40 of 2025 arising out of Barahiya P.S.

                      Case No. 65 of 2025 pending in the court of learned District &

                      Additional       Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Spl. Judge POCSO Act,

                      Lakhisarai.

                                   7. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…