Patna High Court
Vikash RanaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations involve a minor and the prosecution evidence was deemed sufficient to justify custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikash Rana, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging offences under Sections 420, 313, 366(a), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act involving a minor informant. The informant, a 17‑year‑old girl, claimed that the petitioner had taken her to Tamil Nadu, engaged in a physical relationship, caused a pregnancy which was aborted, and later abandoned her after promising marriage. The petitioner contended that the allegations were fabricated, that no FIR was filed earlier, the medical report showed no signs of sexual contact, and the girl’s age was not properly ascertained. The State argued that the girl’s educational documents proved her minority, her statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the prosecution’s version, and the medical report indicated physical contact, with investigations under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC already completed. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the minor status of the informant, and the supporting evidence, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the age of the informant is duly established to invoke the protective provisions of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and the medical report constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 366(a), 376(3), 420
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual offences
- minor
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- CrPC
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62665 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2024 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Vikash Rana S/o Nandan Rana R/o Village- Tarakhar, P.S.- Chandramandih,
District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. X D/o Y R/o Village- Kheriya, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 228 / 2024 dated 09.07.2024 registered
for the offence under Section 420 / 313 / 366(a) / 376 (3) of
the I.P.C. and Section 4 / 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the first information report lodged on 09.07.2024
the informant who is minor, aged about 17 years, has stated that
she used to visit house of her elder married sister -Rekha Devi ,
a resident of Jamui. In course of her visit, she came in contact
with Vikas Rana (i.e. petitioner). It has further been stated that
in February, 2022 the petitioner took her to Tamil Nadu. In
Tamil Nadu she stayed with the petitioner where physical
relationship developed between them. Out of their physical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62665 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
relationship she conceived but in April, 2022 she was aborted. It
has further been alleged that the petitioner assured the informant
of performing marriage with her and in July, 2023 brought her
to her native place and left her.
4. Learned counsel fore the petitioner submits that petitioner
has falsely been implicated in this case on a concocted story. In
fact the informant wanted to perform marriage with the
petitioner and on refusal, the present FIR has been lodged. As
per the FIR, the informant went with the petitioner in the year
2022 but no FIR, nothing was lodged by the side of the
informant’s family. The medical report does not show any sign
of physical relationship between petitioner and the informant.
The age of the informant has also not been ascertained.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued
that informant is a minor which would be evident from the
impugned order itself where the educational certificate / mark
sheet was produced. The petitioner has established physical
relationship with a minor girl on the pretext of performing
marriage. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the prosecution
story. The medical report also suggest that physical relationship
was established with the informant. The processes under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62665 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
82 & 83 Cr.P.C. has already been completed against the
petitioner.
6. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties,
taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact
that informant is minor and she has supported the prosecution
story in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., accordingly, I
am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The
same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…