Patna High Court

Gulten SahversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Bail is denied as no fresh ground is found to overturn the earlier order.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Gulten Sah, who is accused under IPC sections 342, 344, 376 and 504 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences. An earlier order on 17‑02‑2025 had rejected regular bail, citing the gravity of the offences and the victim’s statement under Cr.P.C. 164. The trial report showed that charges were framed, six of eleven witnesses (including the victim) had been examined, and the trial was expected to finish within three to four months. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since 20‑07‑2024 without justification, while the State opposed bail. The Court found no fresh ground to revisit the earlier decision and again denied bail, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within three months and allowing a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether any fresh ground exists to grant bail after the earlier denial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 342, 344, 376, 504
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4

Subjects

bail
POCSO
IPC
judicial custody
serious offences
trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5638 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Gulten Sah S/O Late Domi Sah Resident of Triveniganj, Ward No. 05, Police
                 Station - Triveniganj (Nagar Parishad), District - Supaul.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar.
           2.    Meena Devi W/O Bhuvneshwar Sharma R/O Village- Motipur, Ward No.
                 06, P.S- Karjain, Distt.- Suapaul, At present residing at Raghopur Manohar
                 Chhatravas, P.S- Rodhopur, Distt.- Supaul

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Arun, Advocate
                 For the informant        :       Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Avisha Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   03-04-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   RB(POCSO)-100/2025/POCSO Case No. 122 of 2024, arising

                   out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2024, instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 342, 344, 376 and 504 of the Indian

                   Penal Code and 04 of the POCSO Act.

                             3. Earlier vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Cr.

                   Misc. No. 80424 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was

                   rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the

                   offence as also taking into account the statement of the victim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5638 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                            2/3




          recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., with direction to the learned

          Court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same

          expeditiously.

                   4. In compliance of the order dated 29.01.2026, a report

          dated 06.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has

          been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

          that Charge has been framed against the petitioner on

          22.01.2025. It is further reported that out of 11 witnesses, 06

          witnesses, including victim, informant, one non-official witness

          and three medical officers have been examined, cross-examined

          and discharged. The trial would be concluded within 03-04

          months.

                   5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.07.2024

          without any rhymes or reason.

                   6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          grant of bail.

                   7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition

          of the petitioner.

                    8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the

          petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to

          expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5638 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     preferably within a period of three months from today. If the

                     trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as

                     stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer

                     before the court below.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…