Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shyam Kumar @ Shiyram Paswan @ Siyaram PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

The bail petition was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Shyam Kumar, was charged with kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC and alleged sexual offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act after the alleged abduction of an informant's daughter. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, the victim’s medical report indicated an age of about 19 years and no internal injuries, and that the case had been pending since his custody on 20-06-2024. The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had repeatedly raped and confined her, and noting the petitioner’s five prior criminal convictions. The court observed that the victim had not been noticed but held that bail could not be granted at this stage given the specific allegations and antecedents. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving kidnapping under Section 363 IPC and sexual offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
  • Whether the victim’s statement and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • kidnapping
  • POCSO
  • sexual assault
  • criminal antecedents
  • victim statement
  • Section 363 IPC
  • Section 8 POCSO
  • Section 12 POCSO
  • Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60434 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2024 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Shyam Kumar @ Shiyram Paswan @ Siyaram Paswan S/o Chhedi Paswan
                 R/o Mohalla- Bhalua, P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Bhagirath Yadav @ Bhagriy Yadav S/o Vindeshwar Yadav R/o Village-
                 Mahudar, P.S.- Bodhgaya, District- Gaya

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, A.P.P
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   16-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 363 of the I.P.C and Sections 8/12

                   of the POCSO Act.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others

                   abducted the daughter of the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First

                   Information Report was lodged after three days of the occurrence and

                   the medical report of the victim also shows that her age is about

                   nineteen years. It would also appear from the said medical report

                   that there is no internal injury found by the Doctor. The petitioner is

                   in custody since 20.06.2024 and till date the case has not concluded.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60434 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                                    5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition on

                       the ground that the present case has been filed under the provision of

                       the POCSO Act and the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim discloses

                       a specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed rape

                       with her 2-3 times and that it was the petitioner who had confined her

                       in room. Further, the petitioner has five criminal antecedents.

                                    6. It appears from the records that the victim has not been

                       noticed but since this court is not inclined to grant bail to the

                       petitioner at this stage, there is no requirement of issuance of notice

                       as no order is being passed against her interest.

                                    7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

                       also considering the fact that there is specific allegation against the

                       petitioner, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner stands

                       rejected.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-

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.