Patna High Court
Dilip Kumar @ Deelip KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to monetary and procedural conditions.
Summary
Dilip Kumar was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged kidnapping, rape and sexual exploitation of a minor under Sections 376(3), 366(A), 34 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 7 of the POCSO Act. An earlier anticipatory bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the FIR and statements showed inconsistencies and that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the main accused. The State opposed bail. Considering the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner, the filing of the charge‑sheet and the circumstances of his custody, the Court granted bail on a cash bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding family surety and regular appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged false implication and lack of specific charges warrant bail
- Effect of the earlier withdrawn anticipatory bail on the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366(A), 376(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 7
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- kidnapping
- rape
- false implication
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64333 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2024 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Dilip Kumar @ Deelip Kumar Son of Late Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Prasad @
Shivnath Prasad R/o Village - Salempur, P.S. - Sidhwaliya, District -
Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babita Devi Wife of Aash Narayan Ram R/o Village - Salempur, P.S. -
Sidhwaliya, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devashish Giri, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Devashish Giri, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sidhwaliya P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 instituted for the offence
under Sections 376(3), 366(A) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 4 & 7 of the POCSO Act. Vide order dated
28.04.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20035 of 2025, anticipatory
bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The present FIR has been instituted pursuant to the
direction of the learned Special POCSO Court on a complaint
alleging that the minor victim was kidnapped by the accused
persons in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, forcibly taken to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64333 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
Jaipur, subjected to threats, assault and sexual exploitation under
the guise of a sham marriage, and later returned to the village
under pressure.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2025. Petitioner
bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case solely on account of being an agnate of the main accused,
despite long-standing separation and no active role in the
alleged offence. The FIR and subsequent statements themselves
show that the victim voluntarily accompanied the main accused
and no allegation of sexual assault is attributed to the petitioner,
whose role is at best omnibus and contradictory. The inordinate
and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, coupled with
material inconsistencies between the FIR, Section 161 and
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, clearly demonstrates false
implication after deliberation. Charge sheet has already been
submitted in this case.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64333 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, period of custody of the petitioner, there being no
specific allegation against the petitioner and charge-sheet being
submitted, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Sidhwaliya P.S. Case
No. 16 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…