Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The bail application was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, was charged under multiple IPC sections including rape, extortion, assault, intimidation and common intention, as well as sections of the POCSO Act and the IT Act, for allegedly having a physical relationship with the informant's daughter, recording and distributing private photographs, causing the cancellation of her wedding, and assaulting the informant. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, a clean record, and arguing that the FIR was lodged two and a half months after the alleged incident without justification. The State and the informant opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and other witness testimonies that corroborated the prosecution’s case. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the alleged threat to the victim, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Concluding that the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail, the judge rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC, POCSO Act and IT Act
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR constitutes a ground for granting bail
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 376, 384, 504, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67(A)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- extortion
- criminal intimidation
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- IT Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54406 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2024 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Chandan Kumar S/o Binod Mahto Resident of village- Malangiya, PS-
Rahika, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajiv Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Kumar Singh R/o vill - Malangiya, P.s. -
Rahika, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Thakur
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh
For the Informant : Ms. Minakshi Kumari
Mr. Munish Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
informant and learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in
connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 341, 323, 504, 506 and
34 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and 67(A) of I.T. Act.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner established physical
relationship with the informant’s daughter and recorded her private
photos and videos. When informant fixed his daughter’s marriage,
the petitioner sent these recordings to the groom’s family, resulting in
cancellation of the wedding. It is further alleged that when the
informant confronted the accused, the petitioner along with other co-
accused persons assaulted him and threatened him to kill.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54406 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/2
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case due to ulterior motive. It has further been submitted that
the occurrence took place on 08.01.2024 but the FIR has been lodged
on 01.04.2024 i.e. there is delay of about two and half months
without giving proper explanation for the delay. The petitioner is a
person of clean antecedent and is in custody since 21.05.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as
well as State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the
informant in his re-statement along with other witnesses in paragraph
7, 8 and 9 of the case diary and statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, have supported the prosecution case
and the victim has stated in her statement that petitioner has made
physical relation with her on threat of making her obscene
photographs viral. It has further been submitted that the petitioner
sent her recordings to the groom’s family due to which her wedding
got cancelled and her entire life ruined.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve privilege
of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…