Patna High Court

Jay Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 March 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s corroborative evidence preclude the grant of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Jay Prakash Kumar, applied for bail after being detained since 15 April 2025 in connection with FIR No. 193 of 2025 alleging sexual exploitation of a minor under Section 87 of the B.N.S., 2023. He claimed the allegations were false, stating the victim was his sister‑in‑law and that the case stemmed from a misunderstanding. The State opposed bail, presenting the victim’s recorded statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S., 2023 and a medical report indicating pregnancy, suggesting serious offence under the POCSO Act. The court examined the seriousness of the charge, the victim’s corroborative evidence, and the petitioner’s custody status. Concluding that the allegations were grave and supported by evidence, the court refused the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged sexual exploitation of a minor under Section 87 of the B.N.S., 2023 and the POCSO Act
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 and medical evidence justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 183, 87
POCSO Act

Subjects

bail
sexual exploitation
minor
Section 87
Section 183
POCSO Act
pregnancy
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49647 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Jay Prakash Kumar S/o- Ashok Chauhan Vill - Dahwa, P.S - Darabe Bhadaur,
                 Dist - Patna
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Soni Devi S/o- Jairam Chauhan Vill - Jiyapur, P.S - Warisaliganj, Dist -
                  Nawada
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
                                                 Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   16-03-2026                   Heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   15.04.2025, in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 193

                   of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.04.2025 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 87 of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                 3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he enticed

                   the minor daughter of the informant by giving her a mobile

                   and had sexually exploited her.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and the

                   allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the

                   petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the

                   FIR. In fact, the victim girl is sister-in-law of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49647 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
                                            2/3




          and the informant has filed the case against the petitioner that

          the petitioner has kidnapped the daughter of the informant

          which suggests that both the parties known to each other and

          due to some misunderstanding the present FIR has been

          instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody

          since 15.04.2025.

                       5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned

          counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

          prayer for bail and submits that the victim was recovered and

          the statement of the victim was recorded u/s 183 of

          BNSS,2023 in which she has fully supported the case of the

          prosecution and she has categorically stated that the petitioner

          has committed rape upon her. Apart from the aforesaid, the

          medical report of the victim suggests that she was pregnant at

          the time of medical examination.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances

          of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner as

          alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner

          on bail in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 193 of

          2025, pending in the court of learned District and Additional

          Sessions Judge-Vith-cum-Special                  Judge (POCSO Act),

          Nawada.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49647 of 2025(7) dt.16-03-2026
                                                        3/3




                                   7. Prayer is refused.


                                                          (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Ranjeet/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…