Patna High Court
Ram Vinod Mahto @ Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial, subject to bond and sureties, because the informant’s statement is contested and the delay undermines the prosecution’s case.
Summary
Ram Vinod Mahto was named in an FIR for alleged sexual relations with a 22‑year‑old informant, accused of obtaining her consent by deceit under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable (BNS) Act. The informant, who had previously filed a false POCSO case, challenged the veracity of her own statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the six‑month delay between the alleged incident and the FIR, together with the informant’s history of false complaints, cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the petitioner had deceived the informant to secure a physical relationship, satisfying the elements of the offences. The court noted the contested statement, the unexplained delay, and the informant’s credibility issues, and consequently ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNS.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations constitute an offence under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the allegations.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the informant’s credibility affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (BNS) Act — s. 183, 351(2), 482(2), 69
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- false allegations
- consent by deceit
- Section 69
- Section 351
- Section 183
- Section 482
- POCSO
- delay
- informant credibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42004 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ram Vinod Mahto @ Vinod Kumar S/O Late Sukhdev Mahto @ Sukdev
Mahto Resident of Village- Madhopur Raushan (Bhisa), P.S.- Dumra,
District- Sitamahri.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanchan Kumari D/O Late Indradev Sah R/O Village- Suhai Ward No. 16,
P.S.- Dumra, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. NK Agrawal, Sr. Adv
: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Shashwat Sahil Singh, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.
13/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
69 and 351(2) of the BNS.
3. The allegation against petitioner is to establish
physical relationship with informant aged about 22 years, where
the consent of informant alleged to be obtained by deceitful
means on false pretext of marriage.
4. It is submitted by Mr. NK Agrawal, learned sr.
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that informant is
under habit to lodge such false case against innocent persons
and, thereafter, to blackmail them. In support of his submission
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42004 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/4
Mr. Agrawal submitted that prior to lodging of this case
admittedly a case was lodged by this informant against one
person namely Vivek Sah in year 2023, where she lodged the
case raising allegation for the offence punishable under Section
4 of the POCSO Act, but same was found false by the Special
POCSO Court, Sitamarhi vide its order dated 04.02.2026 in
Sessions Trial No. 156/2025. It is submitted that informant was
roaming inside the court campus in connection with her
aforesaid case and, therefore, she came in contact with this
petitioner. It is submitted that informant raised allegation against
Judicial Officer also that her statement was recorded wrongly
under Section 183 of the BNSS in the present case and same is
apparent from the order dated 21.05.2026 (annexure P3 of the
present bail petition) and also raised allegation against IO of this
case. It is pointed out that informant did not spare petitioner,
Judicial Magistrate and IO of this case, who is a police officer,
which is sufficient to suggest the litigating approach and false
allegation of the informant.
5. Arguing further, it is pointed out by Mr. Agrawal,
that the last occurrence of physical relationship as alleged was
11.04.2025, but the FIR in issue was lodged on 21.04.2026 only
i.e., after about six months, where no explanation for such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42004 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
3/4
inordinate delay was supplied through FIR, making the
allegation doubtful. It is submitted that as informant herself
challenged the version of her statement as recorded under
Section 183 of the BNSS, it cannot be said at this stage atleast
that petitioner established physical relationship by deceitful
means.
6. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for
the informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that
allegation is specifically available against this petitioner. It is
submitted that petitioner established physical relationship with
informant for long one year on false pretext of marriage and
when informant pressurized him to solemnize marriage, he
denied to do so and this conduct of petitioner is sufficient to
suggest that the consent of informant was obtained by deceitful
means to attract offence within the meaning of Section 69 of the
BNS.
7. Let it be so, as factual submission suggest that
victim challenged her own statement as recorded under Section
183 of the BNSS, supporting the allegation, in view of annexure
P3, of the present bail petition, coupled with the fact that FIR in
issue was lodged after 6 months of the occurrence, without
advancing any explanation qua such inordinate delay,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42004 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
4/4
accordingly petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks,
is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Sadar
Sitamarhi/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 13/2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.