Patna High Court
Prem Kumar @ Purushottam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Prem Kumar was arrested in connection with a Mahila Police Station case alleging that he forced a woman into sexual relations, threatened her with obscene photographs, and later blackmailed her by sending such material to her in‑laws. The FIR, filed on 10 March 2026, charges him under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent and alleging a three‑month delay in filing the FIR, sought bail, arguing that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, which alleged repeated rape and blackmail. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s corroborated statement, the Court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the serious nature of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, POCSO Act and IT Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner’s claim of false implication affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 351(2), 352, 64
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(E), 67(A)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- blackmail
- obscene material
- POCSO Act
- IT Act
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39370 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Prem Kumar @ Purushottam Kumar Son of Mahendra Paswan Resident Of
Village- Kamalgarh Ps -Chewara District -Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Daughter of Shri Paswan Resident Of Village- Kamalgarh Ps
-Chewara District -Sheikhpura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (App 125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
02.05.2026 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026,
FIR dated 10.03.2026 registered for the offence under Section
64, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 66(E), 67(A) of the I.T
Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that the petitioner used to make physical relation with
her by threatening her to show her obscene photograph to
everyone and upload it on social media. Later on,even after she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39370 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
got married, the petitioner went to her in-laws and began forcing
her to make physical relations with him. When she refused, this
petitioner sent her obscene videos and photographs to her in-
laws, due to which her in-laws had refused to keep her.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the
F.I.R. He next submits that it appears from the FIR that date of
the occurrence was on 20.12.2025 but the FIR was lodge on
10.03.2026 i.e. after delay of about three months without giving
any reason of delay and the petitioner is rotting in judicial
custody since 02.05.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand,
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that petitioner has committed rape upon the victim on
several occasions by blackmailing her to make her obscene
videos and photographs viral and apart from that the statement
of the victim was recorded under Section 180 BNSS in which
she has stated that petitioner has committed rape upon her.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39370 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
case as well as nature of allegation supported by statement of
the victim, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026, pending in
the Court of District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive
Special Judge(POCSO), Sheikhpura.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.