Patna High Court
Aman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the offences and the progress of the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Aman Kumar, sought regular bail in a Special POCSO case involving offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, later amended to include several other IPC sections and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The bail application had previously been rejected twice, and the petitioner had been in custody since 30 June 2023. The petitioner argued that continued detention served no useful purpose and that a trial report was requested. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the POCSO allegations and noting that four out of seven witnesses, including the victim, had already been examined. Considering the gravity of the offences, the stage of the trial, and the prosecution’s position, the Court declined to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving multiple serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the stage of trial and examination of witnesses justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A, 368, 370A, 372, 373, 376, 379, 411
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- regular bail
- POCSO Act
- Indian Penal Code
- serious offences
- trial stage
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64067 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2023 Thana- PALI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Aman Kumar Son of Rajesh Sao @ Bhutahi Sao R/o - Rajgir, Tulsi Gali,
Nichali Bajar, Near Masjid, Ward No.17, P.S - Rajgir, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mr. X Son of Mahendar Bind R/o of Village and Post Uttar Sherthu, P.S.-
Pali(Kako), Dist. - Jehanabad,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal. APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Special POCSO Case No. 31 of 2023 arising out of Pali P.S.
Case No. 12 of 2023, lodged on 08.01.2023, under Sections 363
and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Sections 368,
370A, 372, 373, 376, 379, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
were added, along with Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s bail application was earlier rejected twice vide order
dated 01.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69555 of 2023 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64067 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
vide order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48785 of
2024. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody
since 30.06.2023. He further submits that a report regarding the
present stage of the trial was called for. He also submits that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
custody.
4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail and submits that there is a direct allegation under the
POCSO Act against the petitioner. He further submits that from
the report it transpires that out of seven witnesses cited in the
charge-sheet, including the victim, four witnesses have already
been examined.
5. In the present facts and circumstances of this case
and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the bail
application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…