Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pinku Ray @ Pinku Kumar @ Pintu RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail was denied because the victim’s statement and the seriousness of the offence outweigh the absence of medical injuries.

Summary

Petitioner Pinku Ray was charged under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNS) Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping a 14‑year‑old girl after rendering her unconscious. He applied for bail, arguing that medical examinations revealed no incriminating injuries, that the investigation was complete, and that he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed, contending that medical evidence is not essential for a rape conviction, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS Act corroborates the allegation, and the trial is expected to conclude within six months as mandated by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s recorded statement outweigh the lack of medical proof, and therefore rejected the bail application. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within the statutory timeline, after which the petitioner may seek bail again.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in an aggravated penetrative sexual assault case under the POCSO Act despite lack of medical evidence of injury.
  • Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS Act suffices to sustain the charge in the absence of physical evidence.
  • Whether the trial can be expected to conclude within the period prescribed under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • sexual assault
  • POCSO Act
  • minor victim
  • medical evidence
  • trial timeline
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54698 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Pinku Ray @ Pinku Kumar @ Pintu Ray S/o- Shiv Shankar Rai @
                 Shivshankar Ray Village- Mansoorpur Halaiya PS- Goraul, Dist- Vaishali
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Victim X D/o- Md. Isha Village- Beruadih Ps- Bariyarpur Dist- Muzaffarpur
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER
7   25-02-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahua

                   P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025 registered for the offence under

                   Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 351 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section

                   4/6 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody

                   since 05.03.2025.

                                4. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit

                   rape/penetrative sexual assault upon informant aged about 14

                   years after making her unconscious.

                                5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   submitted that petitioner was examined medically, immediately

                   after the occurrence, but upon his examination no incriminating

                   material surfaced in support of the allegation. It is submitted that

                   the victim was also examined and if the allegation of aggravated

                   penetrative sexual assault as she alleged to committed rape by two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54698 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          co-accused persons, then certainly some injuries must be found in

          and around her private part, which was not available, therefore,

          allegation as raised against petitioner not appears convincing. It is

          submitted that petitioner is in custody since last 11 months and till

          now only one witness i.e., informant was examined by the learned

          Trial Court suggesting prima-facie that trial of this case is not likely

          to conclude in the near future. While concluding the argument, it

          is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and

          moreover, investigation of this case is completed, for which

          charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of

          tampering with the evidence.

                       6.    Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail

          submitted that it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual

          assault, where informant/victim aged about 14 years was raped by

          petitioner and other named co-accused person. It is submitted that

          none finding of injury upon medical examination does not lead to

          conclusion ipso-facto that rape/penetrative sexual assault was not

          committed upon as rape is a legal finding not a medical one. It is

          submitted that charge-sheet in this matter was submitted on

          27.04.2025, whereafter cognizance was taken in the month of

          May and therefore, by all probability within next 6 months the trial

          would be concluded in view of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54698 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
                                                           3/3




                         and, therefore, the argument as advanced by learned counsel for

                         the petitioner that trial would not conclude in the near future not

                         appears convincing. It is also submitted that victim supported the

                         occurrence and allegation qua petitioner while recording her

                         statement under Section 183 of the BNSS with allegation to push

                         her in flesh trade by one of the co-accused.

                                      7. Despite of service of notice, informant/OP No. 2

                         failed to join present pending proceedings.

                                         8. Considering the aforesaid factual submission and

                         by    taking     note    of    fact     as   allegation   qua   committing

                         rape/penetrative sexual assault is specifically available against

                         petitioner in terms of statement of victim as recorded under

                         Section 183 of the BNSS, coupled with the fact as allegation of

                         pushing victim into flesh trade is also available, accordingly, the

                         prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

                                         9. Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the

                         trial, positively, within timeline as preferred under Section 35(2) of

                         the POCSO Act, failing which petitioner may renew his prayer of

                         bail, if so advised.


                                                                 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.