Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, was arrested in connection with a kidnapping case involving the minor daughter of an informant, alleged to have been abducted for illicit intercourse or marriage. He has been in custody since 28 December 2024 and sought bail, arguing that the allegations were false, the relationship was consensual, and the victim showed no signs of sexual assault. The petitioner highlighted that the victim, aged 16-18, had not been examined under Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act and that the trial was unlikely to conclude within the one‑year period prescribed by Section 35(2) of POCSO. The prosecution opposed bail, while the informant's counsel did not appear. The court, noting the prolonged detention without charge framing and the doubtful nature of the allegations, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a kidnapping case involving a minor under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 96 IPC and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in trial beyond the one‑year period prescribed by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act warrants bail.
- Whether the allegations constitute a false case given the lack of medical evidence of sexual assault.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 480(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2), 140(3), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 35(1), 35(2)
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- POCSO
- false case
- trial delay
- IPC
- Section 35
- Section 480
- love affair
- sexual assault allegation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49918 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- IMADPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Deepak Kumar S/o Balmiki Saw @ Balmiki Sah R/o Village- Imadpur, P.O.-
Imadpur, P.S.- Imadpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tetar Devi W/o Sunil Singh R/o Village- Imadpur, P.S.- Imadpur, District-
Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunny Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 06-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Imadpur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024 registered
for the offence under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 96
BNS.
3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is
in custody since 28.12.2024.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is to
kidnap minor daughter of informant aged about 16
years from her house on intervening night of
16.12.2024 for the purpose of illicit intercourse /
marriage.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49918 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
2/4
the petitioner submitted that during course of
investigation several prosecution witnesses
supported the love affairs between the daughter of
the informant and petitioner and as their love affairs
was not approved by the informant and other family
members of the victim the present false case was
lodged. It is submitted that upon perusal of
statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. it appears that the victim with this
petitioner went up to Punjab, where she lived
together for considerable period of time and when
this petitioner came to know about lodging of
present FIR he returned alongwith the victim. It is
submitted that upon medical examination victim was
found between the age group of 16-18 years, and
moreover, no sign of sexual assault as alleged was
found upon her, making the allegation doubtful.
6. Arguing further it is submitted that
petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2024, i.e., for
more than one year and still the victim could not be
examined before learned trial court in view of
Section 35(1) of POCSO Act and, therefore, the trial
of this case is not likely to conclude within preferred
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49918 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
3/4
timeline of one year as available under Section 35(2)
of POCSO Act, for the reason that preferable time
period has already crossed. While concluding the
argument, it is submitted that petitioner is a man of
clean antecedent.
7. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
8. Learned counsel for the informant failed
to join present proceedings upon repeated calls.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submissions
and by taking note of fact as petitioner remains in
custody for more than one year i.e., since
28.12.2024, where even charge could not framed in
this matter suggesting prima-facie trial of this case is
not likely to conclude in near future, accordingly
petitioner above named, is directed to be released
on bail in connection with Imadpur P.S. Case No. 156
of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM 1 st
Class, Ara /concerned court, subject to the conditions
as mentioned under Section 480(3) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49918 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
4/4
U T
Checking your session…