Patna High Court
Nitya Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ Nitiya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitya Kumar, was arrested in connection with a 2017 POCSO case alleging offences under the IPC, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act, including attempts to gag a minor, assault, and harassment of relatives. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and another accused tried to silence the informant's daughter, pulled her dupatta, and assaulted her brother. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that procedural requirements under Sections 82, 83 and 41(1) of the CrPC were not complied with. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences involving a minor. After hearing both sides, the Court noted the procedural lapses and the petitioner’s lack of antecedents and decided to grant bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (POCSO) in Sheikhpura.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving multiple serious offences against a minor.
- Whether procedural lapses under Sections 82, 83 and 41(1) of the CrPC warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1), 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354, 504/34
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 8
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(R)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- procedural lapse
- minor protection
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20534 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Nitya Kumar @ Nitish Kumar @ Nitiya Kumar Son of Jittu Yadav @ Jitu
Yadav Resident of Village - Mohalla Chakdiwan, Police Station and District -
Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXXXX D/o YYYYY R/o Village/Mohalla - Budhauli, Ward no. 17, P.S.
and Dist. - Sheikhpura.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with POCSO Case No. 02 of 2017 arising out of Sheikhpura
(SKP)-SC/ST P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(2)(va)/3(1)(R)(s)(w) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner and one other have attempted to gag the mouth of the
informant's daughter, due to which the pitcher that was
containing water fell down. It is further alleged that as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20534 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
victim raised alarm her brother Sandeep Kumar came to rescue
her. The petitioner and one other assaulted the brother of the
informant. It is specifically alleged that one Rahul Kumar pulled
the dupatta of the minor daughter of the informant and
attempted to drag her. It is further alleged that the petitioner and
others have abused the aunts of the minor daughter of the
informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear
that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he and one
other accused have attempted to gag the mouth of the minor
daughter of the informant and it is specifically alleged that one
Rahul has pulled the dupatta of the minor daughter of the
informant. He further submits that from perusal of the order of
the learned trial court, it will transpire that the processes under
Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were issued, but those notices
were not served upon the petitioner. He further submits that the
petitioner was given the benefit of Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C.
during investigation. Moreover, a statement has been made in
para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20534 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
and he is languishing in judicial custody since 07.03.2026.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District
& Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge
(POCSO), Sheikhpura in connection with POCSO Case No. 02
of 2017 arising out of Sheikhpura (SKP)-SC/ST P.S. Case No.
02 of 2017.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…