Patna High Court
Purushottam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail may be granted in the present case subject to strict conditions, despite the seriousness of the POCSO charges.
Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Kumar, was arrested on 4 November 2025 in connection with an FIR alleging kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor under Section 96 of the B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated, asserting that the victim's statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. did not implicate him in any sexual assault. The informant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences involving a minor. The Court, after considering the facts, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedent. The order directed that any violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 96 of the B.N.S.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and alleged fabrication of the FIR justify bail
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial and protect the minor victim
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 183, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- kidnapping
- sexual assault
- minor
- criminal antecedent
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4412 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- FESHAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Purushottam Kumar S/O Rajesh Paswan @ Rajeshwar Paswan Resident of
Village- Khaira, P.S.- Fesar, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/O Late Jadunandan Ram R/O Village- Mahadipur, P.S- Fesar, Distt.-
Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
For the Informant : Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
04.11.2025, in connection with Fesar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025,
F.I.R. dated 03.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 96 of the B.N.S. and Section 8/12 of the POCSO
Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with
other co-accused persons have kidnapped the minor daughter of
the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4412 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
in the present 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 offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and the
petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that the
petitioner is friend of co-accused Chintu Kumar and in fact the
victim was in love with co-accused Chintu Kumar and the victim
was recovered and her statement under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S. was recorded in which she has not stated anything about
the sexual assault against the petitioner and at the instance of co-
accused Chintu Kumar the petitioner has accompanined with the
victim to proceed to Gujarat. He further submits that the police
after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and
the petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional District Sessions Judge-VI cum-Special Exclusive
Judge (POCSO), Civil Court, Aurangabad in connection with
Fesar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025, subject to the following
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4412 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his
bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…