Patna High Court
PINTU KHALIFA @ VISWARANJAN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to regular bail as his role is peripheral, no specific allegation is made against him, and there is no material suggesting a risk of tampering, intimidation, or flight.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Khalifa, sought regular bail in a case where a raid on his residence uncovered a victim girl and alleged that the premises were being used as a brothel. The prosecution charged him under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the POCSO Act, the Child Labour Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, but the FIR primarily implicated another accused, Rahul Kumar. The petitioner argued that he was merely a co‑habitant, that the victim’s supplementary affidavit did not attribute any kidnapping or immoral act to him, and that his wife Jago Devi had already been granted regular bail on similar grounds. The court examined whether the petitioner posed a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing, and considered the principle of parity with the co‑accused. Finding no specific overt act against him and noting the prolonged pre‑trial custody of over five months, the court held that bail should be granted. Consequently, the petitioner was released on regular bail upon furnishing the required bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, a co‑habitant of the alleged brothel premises, is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused who has already been granted bail warrants granting bail to the petitioner.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 143, 144(1), 144(2), 145, 61, 64(1), 70, 98, 99
- Child Labour Act — s. 18
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act — s. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
- Juvenile Justice Act — s. 75, 79
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- regular bail
- bail parity
- brothel
- immoral traffic
- POCSO
- peripheral role
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4916 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai
======================================================
PINTU KHALIFA @ VISWARANJAN KUMAR S/o- Ashok Khalifa R/v-
Nadail Ghat Meerkalapur Ps- Bakhri Dist- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Shilpee Kumari D/o- Venkatesh Kumar Singh Presently Posted as Station
Head Officer, Begusarai Mahila Ps Dist- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
5 27-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Begusarai Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, registered under
Sections 143, 144(1), 144(2), 64(1), 111, 98, 99, 70, 145 and 61
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7, 6, 3, 4 and
5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, Sections 4, 8 and 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Section 18
of the Child Labour Act and Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile
Justice Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is the
husband of one Jago Devi, at whose house a raid was carried out
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4916 of 2026(5) dt.27-05-2026
2/4
and a victim girl was recovered therefrom. It appears from the
prosecution materials that the said premises was being used as a
brothel. The principal thrust of the prosecution's allegation,
however, is directed against one Rahul Kumar. The petitioner's
role, as reflected in the First Information Report, is as a co-
habitant of the raided premises rather than as a primary operator
of the alleged brothel.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the petitioner, in which the victim girl has not attributed any
act of kidnapping or commission of any immoral act to the
petitioner. It is further submitted that a similarly situated co-
accused, namely, Jago Devi, has been granted regular bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75071 of 2025. The petitioner has been
in custody since 29.11.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, this application is allowed. The petitioner has been in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4916 of 2026(5) dt.27-05-2026
3/4
judicial custody since 29.11.2025, which is a period exceeding
five months. As per the First Information Report, the primary
and principal allegations in this case are directed against one
Rahul Kumar; the petitioner's role is that of a co-habitant of the
premises where the raid was carried out, and no specific overt
act has been attributed to him in the core allegations. The victim
girl, in her supplementary affidavit, has not attributed any act of
kidnapping or immoral conduct to the petitioner. The co-accused
Jago Devi, who is the petitioner's wife and whose nexus with the
alleged activities is arguably more proximate, has already been
enlarged on regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 10.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 75071 of 2025.
The petitioner stands on a footing at least as favourable as Jago
Devi and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of parity. There is,
at this stage, no material before this Court to suggest that the
petitioner, if enlarged on bail, is likely to tamper with evidence,
intimidate witnesses, or flee from justice. The gravity of the
statutory provisions invoked is not, by itself, a sufficient ground
to deny bail in the present circumstances, given the peripheral
nature of the petitioner's role as discernible from the prosecution
materials. In view of the above, this application is allowed.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner above-named be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4916 of 2026(5) dt.27-05-2026
4/4
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge of POCSO
Act, Begusarai/concerned court below, in connection with
Begusarai Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.