Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The bail application was rejected; the petitioner was not enlarged on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar Singh, was charged under IPC section 376 and POCSO Act section 6 for raping the minor daughter of the informant. He has been in custody since 31 December 2020 and is handicapped. Earlier bail applications were denied, but the court allowed him to renew the bail plea if the trial was not concluded within six months. The defence sought an ossification test to determine the victim's age, and the trial is now near its conclusion. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the pending trial, the High Court rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to finish the case within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO rape case when the trial has been delayed despite a prior direction to conclude within six months.
- Whether the pending age determination of the minor victim via ossification test affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the nature of the offence and the accused's handicap justify bail in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- minor
- ossification test
- age determination
- trial delay
- handicap
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49818 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2020 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Kumar son of Nepali Kumar Singh @
Shiv Kumar Singh village- Suryapur PS -Athmalgola District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Baby Devi Wife of Bablu singh village- Suryapur PS -Athmalgola District-
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nazia Shabah, Advocate
Mr. Md. Fahar Imran, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
12 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in
connection with Spl. (POCSO) Case no.52 of 2020 (arising out
of Athmalgola P.S. Case no.50 of 2020) registered under section
376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 8.12.2021 passed in Cr. Misc.
no.27522 of 2021 and order dated 3.5.2023 passed in Cr. Misc.
no.9789 of 2023 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail in the learned Court below if the trial is not
concluded within six months.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49818 of 2025(12) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to
have committed rape on the minor daughter of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite
of the petitioner who is a handicap being in custody for more
than five years since 31.12.2020 and the observation of this
Court in its order dated 3.5.2023 to complete the trial within six
months, the trial is still pending and as such the petitioner be
enlarged on bail. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the
trial.
6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that while the liberty was
given in the order of this Court passed in May, 2023, for reasons
best known the petitioner moved this Court for bail only in July,
2025. It is further submitted that the trial was near conclusion
when the petition was filed on behalf of the defence for
ascertainment of the age of the victim by performing
ossification test. It is thus submitted that the trial being about to
conclude, in view of the nature of allegation, the petitioner
should not be enlarged on bail.
7. On perusal of the material on record, it transpires
that the case was running at the stage of defence argument in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49818 of 2025(12) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
April, 2024 when a petition was filed by the defence under the
Evidence Act challenging the date of birth of the victim. A
direction was given by the learned Court below to the
Superintendent, PMCH, Patna to constitute a medical board for
ossification test of the victim for her age determination.
8. On perusal of the letter dated 7.4.2026 of the
Superintendent, PMCH, Patna, it transpires that the age of the
victim was ascertained on the basis of ossification test by a
board consisting of six members and a report has been sent to
the learned Court below by letter no.5195 of 23.8.2025 of the
Superintendent, PMCH, Patna.
9. In view of the nature of allegation against the
petitioner and the trial being near its conclusion, the Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is
rejected.
10. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the
trial at the earliest preferably within three months from the date
of receipt/communication of this order.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.