Patna High Court

Sintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Sintu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act for allegedly creating and circulating viral objectionable photographs and video of a minor girl. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, and the victim expressed a desire to live with him, while also noting the absence of a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s alleged intent and prior criminal antecedents. The Court examined the gravity of the offences and the public interest in protecting children, and concluded that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected, with a direction that regular bail may be considered if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 66E of the IT Act.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged false implication and the victim’s statement affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Information Technology Act — s. 66E
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
POCSO Act
child sexual abuse
IT Act
viral obscene content
bail jurisprudence
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36553 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Sintu Kumar S/o Umesh Yadav Resident of village- Aandhari Mathiya, P.S.-
                 Ranitalab, Distt- Patna
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Gopal Ji S/o Late Ajay Yadav R/o Vill- Aandhari Mathiya, P.S.- Ranitalab,
                  Distt- Patna
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   05-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025, instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section

                   66 E of the I.T. Act.

                               3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner and

                   the other co-accused made viral objectionable photographs of

                   the informant’s minor sister. It is alleged that petitioner

                   allegedly caught hold the minor girl while she was going to

                   attend call of nature.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

                   F.I.R. is written after a lapse of three days of incident. The

                   victim girl desires to live with the petitioner. He further
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36553 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     submitted that nothing has been whispered against the petitioner

                     in Section 183 of the BNSS statement of the victim. It has been

                     submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has three

                     criminal antecedents.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The

                     petitioner caught hold the victim with bad intention. The

                     petitioner has made viral objectionable video of the victim.

                     Therefore, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, nature and gravity of offences, in my view, this is

                     not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                                  8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.


                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…