Patna High Court
Pradeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Pradeep Kumar was arrested in connection with a kidnapping and alleged rape of a minor, the daughter of an informant, under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic and Special (BNS) Act and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He has been in custody since 27 May 2025 and sought bail, arguing that the victim’s statement was inconsistent, no injuries were found on medical examination, and the trial could not be completed within the six‑month period prescribed by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, thus violating his Article 21 right. The State contended that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS clearly alleged four rapes and that lack of medical injury does not negate the offence. The Court examined the allegations, the victim’s statements, and the statutory timeline, and concluded that the seriousness of the alleged penetrative sexual assault warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months, after which the petitioner may renew his bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving alleged kidnapping and multiple rapes of a minor.
- Whether the absence of medical injuries negates the allegation of rape under the victim’s statement.
- Whether continued detention without trial violates the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the trial must be concluded within the period prescribed by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 35(2), 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- rape
- minor
- trial delay
- Article 21
- Section 35(2)
- medical evidence
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59790 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2025 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Pradeep Kumar S/O Banhu Mahto @ Bandhu Mahato R/O Vill.- Jaitiya
Noniya Tola, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X ( symbolic name of the father of the so called victim) S/O Late Magar
Mahto R/O Vill.- Jaitiya Noniya Tola, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West
Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Yogapatti
P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 137(2), 87, 126(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody
since 27.05.2025.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap
minor daughter of informant along with other co-accused persons
aged about 16 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage
with another person.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59790 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
submitted that though victim alleged this petitioner to commit rape
four times while she was in captivity of petitioner at Gorakhpur,
but tutoring qua aforesaid statement cannot be ruled out in view of
her statement as recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and in
this connection learned counsel drew attention of this Court
towards para no. 13 of the case diary, where it appears that after
recovery from Chanpatiya, victim was handed over to her parents
and, thereafter, her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS was
recorded. It is pointed out that upon medical examination no injury
was noticed in and around private part of the victim, which also
negates allegation qua rape/penetrative sexual assault. It is
submitted that trial could not conclude within preferred timeline as
provided under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, therefore,
petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period in want
of trial, violating fundamental right of petitioner as available under
Article 21 of Constitution of India.
6. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the
informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that victim
specifically alleged that this petitioner committed rape upon her
while she was in captivity at Gorakhpur. It is submitted that she
was raped by petitioner repeatedly for four times, which is
apparent from her statement as recorded under Section 183 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59790 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
BNSS. 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 in this
matter was framed on 20.02.2026 and, therefore, within next
couple of months it is likely to conclude.
7. Considering the aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as allegation qua committing penetrative sexual
assault/rape is specifically available against petitioner in terms of
statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS,
accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
8. However, learned Trial Court is directed to
conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of 06 months from
the date of receipt of this order as preferred within timeline 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
Checking your session…