Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh BasaforversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, applied for bail in a POCSO case (Case No. 90 of 2025) alleging that he was falsely implicated in the abduction and forced marriage of a minor. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with another accused, abducted the child, transferred her to various persons, and ultimately arranged her marriage to Darshan Singh, invoking sections of the BNSS 2023 and the POCSO Act. The petitioner contended that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS was unreliable and that he has no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 3 October 2025. The informant’s counsel countered that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS clearly implicated the petitioner and that a co‑accused had already been denied bail. The court, after considering the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s statements, refused bail, permitting the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the case under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 96 and 137(2) of the BNSS 2023.
- Whether the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS are admissible and reliable for bail considerations.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged child abduction and forced marriage warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child abduction
- child marriage
- victim statement
- Section 180
- Section 183
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4894 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Basafor S/o Manju Basafor @ Manju Vasfod R/o
Village - Khiriya Machhar Gaon, Ward No. 07, P.S - Bagha, District - West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX W/o YYY R/o Village - Ghuran, P.S - Supaul, District - Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with POCSO Case No. 90 of 2025 arising out of Supaul P.S.
Case No. 387 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 96, 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 4 &
6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner and one other have abducted the minor daughter of
the informant, and they have handed her over to somebody else
who got her married to one Darshan Singh.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4894 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that in this case, during the course of the
investigation, the victim has given her statement recorded under
Section 180, and she has stated that Chandan has taken her and
that Chandan has also established forceful physical relationship
with her. He further submits that the main thrust of the
allegation is against Chandan. Moreover, a statement has been
made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
03.10.2025.
5. Countering this, the application for bail is
vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the informant
and the learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the
informant has stated that the victim has given her statement
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she has stated
that Rakesh, this petitioner, and Chandan took her to Bhediya
and from there she was taken to Gorakhpur and from there she
was handed over to Sunaina, thereafter, she was married to one
orphan, namely, Darshan Singh. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that the statement of the victim goes to show
that the petitioner and Chandan have sold her and transferred
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4894 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
her to different hands and she was ultimately married to one
Darshan Singh. He further submits that similarly situated co-
accused Chandan Kumar has been refused the privilege of bail
by the learned coordinate bench of this court vide Cr. Misc. No.
16703 of 2026. It has also been argued that the learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied much on the statement of the victim
under Section 180 of the BNSS, but the manner in which the
statement of the victim was recorded in 180 of the BNSS is not
in the spirit of the provision, and as such, this cannot be relied
on.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail however the
petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six
months if the trial is not concluded.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the case
and to dispose it of in view of Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…