Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotoo KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was denied bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Chhotu Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 96, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he abducted the minor daughter of an informant and that his parents abused the informant. The petitioner contended that he is innocent and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S., in which she claimed to have married the petitioner, should exonerate him. The informant’s counsel argued that the victim, being a minor of about 14‑15 years, cannot give a valid statement and that the petition for bail should be denied. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 17‑10‑2024 and that the trial record showed only the victim, the investigating officer, and the doctor remained to be examined. After considering the submissions, the court rejected the bail application, stating the petitioner does not merit the privilege of bail. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail plea.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the charges of kidnapping and offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act
  • Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. is admissible and relevant given her minority
  • Whether the seriousness of the offences warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • kidnapping
  • child sexual offence
  • POCSO
  • minor victim
  • Section 183
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57562 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-503 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotoo Kumar Son of Munchun Mandal Resident of
                 village - Sajal Korama, P.S.- Rajoun, District - Banka.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Pawan Mandal Son of Bhojal Mandal Resident of village - Sajal Korama,
                  P.S.- Rajoun, District - Banka.
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
                 PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   16-02-2026                     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

                   as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                   Rajoun P.S. Case No. 503 of 2024 registered under Sections 96,

                   352, 3(5) of B.N.S. and 8/12 of POCSO Act.

                                3. It is alleged that the petitioner took away the minor

                   daughter of the informant. When the informant went to his

                   house to inquire into the matter, the parents of the aforesaid

                   petitioner allegedly abused the informant.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

                   this case. The victim did not support the prosecution case in her

                   statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. She stated that she
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57562 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     has solemnized marriage with the petitioner.

                                  5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

                     informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the

                     statement of the victim has no relevance, as she is a minor girl

                     aged about 14 to 15 years.

                                  6. The petitioner has been in custody since

                     17.10.2024, and the report of the learned trial court shows that

                     only the victim, the I.O., and the Doctor remain to be examined.

                                  7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the

                     privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

                                  8. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the

                     trial within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner

                     shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court

                     below itself.


                                          (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

Nirmal/-
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.