Patna High Court
Rajeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied because the victim is a minor and the alleged offences are grave, rendering any purported consent legally ineffective.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he abducted and sexually assaulted a minor girl, the daughter of the informant. The prosecution alleged that the victim, a minor, was taken to the petitioner's residence after disappearing from tuition, and charged him under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner contended that the victim had voluntarily eloped, married him, and was possibly a major, asserting lack of documentary proof of age and no injuries in the medical report, thus seeking bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim is a minor and that consent of a minor is legally invalid, making the offences grave. The Court, considering the minor status of the victim and the seriousness of the alleged offences, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial, allowing the petitioner to reapply for bail if the trial exceeds four months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of the POCSO Act when the alleged victim is a minor.
- Whether the alleged consent of a minor is legally valid in the context of the offences charged.
- Whether the age of the victim has been sufficiently established to affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor
- consent
- sexual assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4395 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar S/o Sitaram Manjhi R/o Village - Chinveriya, P.S - Laxmipur,
District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priti Kumari W/o Pintu Paswan R/o Village - Bhola Nagar, Ward No. 3, P.S -
Jamui, District - Jamui
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jamui
P.S. Case No. 393 of 2025 (POCSO Case No. 79 of 2025)
instituted for the offence under Section 96 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequently, Section 4 of the POCSO
Act was added.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
07.07.2025, the informant, who is the mother of the victim,
alleged that her minor daughter went to tuition at Manideep
School and thereafter went missing. Upon search, it was alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4395 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
that petitioner had abducted her daughter and kept her with him.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2025. Petitioner
bears three (3) criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
victim voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and solemnized
marriage with him, as clearly stated in her statement, with no
allegation against the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to
establish the victim’s age due to absence of documentary proof,
making her possibly major, and the medical report shows no
injuries or evidence of sexual assault. Hence, no offence as
alleged in the FIR is made out against the petitioner.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner. Referring to the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted
that petitioner has established physical relationship with the
victim, though with consent as stated in the statement, but the
consent has no value in the eye of law as the victim is stated to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4395 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
be minor. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case
under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the fact that victim is minor
and nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
9. However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded
within a period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…