Patna High Court

PINTU BAHARDARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 4 May 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Pintu Bahardar, was arrested on 22 February 2026 in connection with a POCSO case alleging that he forcibly assaulted a minor girl in a field. The petitioner claimed the FIR was fabricated and sought bail. The State opposed bail, presenting the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, confirming the allegations, and noting the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The court noted the seriousness of the charges under Sections 69, 75(2), 352 and 351(2) of the POCSO Act, the victim’s corroborated testimony, and the petitioner’s other pending cases. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail, refusing the petitioner's prayer.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual assault of a minor.
Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, and the seriousness of the offences warrant denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 183
POCSO Act — s. 351(2), 352, 69, 75(2)

Subjects

bail
POCSO
sexual assault
minor
criminal procedure
bail refusal

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29694 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2025 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Pintu Bahardar S/O Dayanand Bahardar R/O Village- Naya Patti Bistaria,
                 Ward No. 12, P.S.- Raniganj, District- Araria
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/S
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State Of Bihar
           2.     Xxx W/O Xxx R/O Village- Jagta Kharsahi, Ward No. 09, P.S.- Raniganj,
                  District- Araria
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-05-2026                     Heard Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh, learned counsel

                   for the petitioner and the Mr.Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P.

                   for the State.

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

                   22.02.2026 in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 345 of

                   2025, F.I.R. dated 03.09.2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 69, 75(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. r/w 4

                   of the POCSO Act.

                                3. Allegation against the petitioner is that, when the

                   informant used to go to Durga Sthan Kharasahi field everyday

                   for cutting grass, he follows her on his motorcycle to the field

                   and constantly harasses her to engage in immoral acts. When

                   she resisted, he forcibly grab her in the field and commit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29694 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                            2/3




          immoral acts to her.

                       4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

          submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and

          fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as

          alleged in the FIR.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the basis of the

          material available on the record, has vehemently opposed the

          prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim

          was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section

          183 of B.N.S.S., 2023 in which she has fully supported the

          case of the prosecution. Although the victim has been

          examined by the Doctor and the Doctor has assessed the age

          of the victim 17-19 years but the date of birth of the victim

          suggests that at the time of occurrence the victim was minor.

          Further submits that the petitioner carries three more cases

          other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner

          is on bail in all the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail

          petition.

                       6. Considering the nature of allegation against the

          petitioner in the F.I.R. supported by the victim, I am not

          inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with

          Raniganj P.S. Case No. 345 of 2025, pending in the court of
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29694 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                                           3/3




                         learned D.A.J.-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Araria or his

                         successor Court.

                                      7. Prayer is refused.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…