Patna High Court
Munna Singh @ Munna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petition.
Summary
Munna Singh applied for regular bail in a POCSO case involving alleged abduction and sexual assault of a fifteen‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleges that Singh and co‑accused Golu Yadav entered the victim's house, forcibly removed the girl, and left her injured in a forest, with the mother filing the complaint. The petitioner claims innocence, asserting that the victim is a major girl who had a relationship with the co‑accused and that the forensic report is pending. The State countered that the victim's statement under Section 183, a medical injury report showing multiple wounds, and a confessional statement by the petitioner substantiate the charges. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the confession, and the corroborative evidence, the court denied the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving serious offences, a confession, and corroborative medical evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), 332, 332(c), 3(5), 352, 70(2), 75, 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- confession
- injury report
- regular bail
- serious offences
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52853 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2025 Thana- Vasudeva District- Buxar
======================================================
Munna Singh @ Munna Kumar S/o Arvind Singh R/o Village- Kukurbhuka,
P.S.- Basudeva, District- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Soni Kumari @ Soni W/o Ganesh Yadav R/o Village- Kukurbhuka, P.S.-
Basudeva, District- Buxar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in
connection with POCSO Case No. 60 of 2025, arising out of
Basudeva P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 70(2), 75, 76, 109,
332, 332(c), 352, 3(5) of BNS.
3. The mother of the victim is the informant. According
to the allegation, when she was present in her house along with her
fifteen years old daughter, the petitioner and co-accused Golu Yadav
entered at 9 p.m. and at the point of pistol, they started misbehaving
with her daughter. They dragged out her daughter forcibly. Thereafter
the informant along with her relatives started searching her daughter
and she was traced in a forest in injured condition.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52853 of 2025(6) dt.31-01-2026
2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The
victim is a major girl and she had love and affection with co-accused
Golu Yadav. The petitioner has falsely been implicated merely
because he is friend of Golu Yadav. He has also submitted that FSL
report is still awaited.
5. On the other hand, Mr. J.N. Thakur, the learned APP
for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the
petitioner and co-accused Golu Yadav dragged out the victim from
her house before the eyes of her mother and she was found in injured
condition. He has submitted further that the victim fully corroborated
the case in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS. The injury
report contained in paragraph no. 128 of the case diary shows that six
injuries were present on the person of the victim, caused by knife,
etc. The confessional statement of the petitioner is also mentioned in
paragraph no. 104 of the case diary. The petitioner has confessed his
guilt.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for bail.
Accordingly, it is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.