Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar @ SurajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 376 and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6 for allegedly kidnapping and raping the minor daughter of an informant. The victim’s statements recorded under BNSS sections 180 and 183 claim she went with the petitioner to Mumbai, was forcefully married and had a physical relationship, but she denied undergoing a medical examination. The petitioner argued that the victim’s denial of medical evidence weakens the rape allegation and that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident, indicating a delay. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, considering the lack of medical evidence, the victim’s own statements, and the fact that only charges had been framed with no witnesses examined, granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite charges of kidnapping, forced marriage and rape under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s denial of medical examination and her statements under BNSS affect the strength of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the delay between the alleged occurrence and filing of the FIR is a ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Non-Compulsory Statement (BNSS) — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366A, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- POCSO
- forced marriage
- victim statements
- delay in FIR
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6138 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Son of Ramsurat Ram @ Surat Ram
Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Sahebganj, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX Daughter of XY Resident of Village- Madhurapur, P.S.- Sahebganj,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A), 376 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3 The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner
along with others kidnapped the minor daughter of the
informant.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during the course of investigation, the statements of the victim
have been recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.
In her statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, she
has stated that as her father and brother have beaten her, she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6138 of 2026(6) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
went with the petitioner who took her to Mumbai. They started
living in Mumbai in a rented house and that the petitioner has
forcefully solemnized marriage with her and has also
established forceful physical relationship. In her statement
under Section 183 of the BNSS, she has stated that the petitioner
was studying with her in the coaching. Anyhow the petitioner
got her mobile phone number and started talking with her. He
called her for seeing fare and, thereafter, took her to Mumbai
and solemnized marriage forcefully. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that as per the FIR, the date of the
occurrence is 07.03.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged on
10.03.2024. The delay is not explained. It is further submitted
that from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 183 of the BNSS, it is clear that she has denied her
medical examination. In her both statements one thing is clear
that both were knowing each other from before and that they
had proceeded to Mumbai. So far as allegation of solemnizing
forcible marriage and establishing physical relation is
concerned, that is not substantiated as the victim has herself
denied medical examination. As the victim has denied her
medical examination, the allegation of rape gets weekend.
5 A report was called for regarding the stage of trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6138 of 2026(6) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
which goes to show that only charges have been framed and no
witness has turned up for examination.
6 Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
7 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Court POCSO III,
Muzaffarpur in Sahebganj PS Case No 108 of 2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
M.E.H./-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.