Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ram Ashish Das @ Ramshish DasversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The bail application was denied as the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Ashish Das, was charged under IPC sections 366A, 363, 354(B), 354(D) and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12 for allegedly harassing a minor, circulating her photographs and forcibly taking her away. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and stating that the victim’s statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. did not support the prosecution and that the victim was only 16‑17 years old with no rape allegation. The State argued that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. fully corroborated the prosecution and that the trial was nearing its conclusion with all witnesses examined. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the victim’s corroborated statements and the stage of the trial. Concluding that the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail, the Court rejected the bail application. The petition for bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused charged with kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor under IPC and POCSO Act.
  • Whether the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the stage of the trial justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • IPC
  • POCSO Act
  • kidnapping
  • sexual assault
  • minor
  • Cr.P.C. sections 161 164
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37278 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2024 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Ram Ashish Das @ Ramshish Das son of Tej Narayan Das Village -Bhajnaha
                 PS- Laukaha District -Madhubani

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar bihar
           2.    Manish Kumar Sah son of Dorik Lal Sah Village -Bhajnaha PS- Laukaha
                 District -Madhubani

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr.Ravi Prakash, Adv.
                 For the State           :        Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
                 PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   05-01-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well

                   as learned APP for the State.

                                    2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail

                   in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024, G.R.

                   No. 97 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 366A, 363, 354(B),(D) of the IPC and 8, 12 of POCSO

                   Act.

                                    3. As per the FIR, the informant’s minor daughter

                   was being harassed for the past six months by co-villager Ram

                   Ashish Das (the petitioner), who circulated her photographs.

                   Further, the petitioner along with some unknown persons,

                   forcibly took her away from her house.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37278 of 2025(4) dt.05-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                                    4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

                     submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been

                     implicated. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section

                     161 of the Cr.P.C., did not support the prosecution case. He has

                     submitted further that the age of the victim, as per the medical

                     report, is 16-17 years and there is no allegation of commission

                     of rape against the petitioner.

                                   5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

                     informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the

                     victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the

                     Cr.P.C., has fully supported the prosecution case. He has also

                     submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined

                     and the trial is on the verge of its conclusion.

                                    6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and

                     circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the

                     privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.


                                          (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

kundan/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.