Patna High Court
Sandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s status as a minor.
Summary
Sandeep Kumar was charged under Sections 69 and 96 of the BNS Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly luring a minor girl to his residence on a false promise of marriage, having sexual intercourse with her, and causing a pregnancy. The victim, whose school records show a date of birth of 15‑02‑2009, was less than 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence, although a medical report placed her age between 17‑19 years. The petitioner applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and that the relationship was consensual between two adults. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority, pregnancy, and the gravity of the offences under POCSO. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s status as a child, but allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application after six months if the trial remains pending. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the alleged offences under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim qualifies as a child under the POCSO Act based on her date of birth and age at the time of the incident.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences precludes the grant of bail at this stage.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 183, 69, 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 35(2), 4, 6
Subjects
- regular bail
- POCSO
- minor
- false promise of marriage
- sexual assault
- pregnancy
- criminal procedure
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66594 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2025 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar S/O Shri Sharwan Ram Resident of Village- Aspura, P.S.-
Bikram, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gayatri Devi C/O Shri Rambabu Ram R/O Village- Ankuri, P.S- Paliganj,
Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
For the Informant : Mr. M.P. Bhartee, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
8 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Paliganj P.S. Case No. 354 of 2025 instituted
for the offence under Sections 69 and 96 of BNS and Sections 4
and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor
daughter of the informant used to go her aunt’s house at Aspura.
The petitioner Sandeep is neighbourer of informant’s sister-in-
law at Aspura. It is further alleged that the petitioner has
established relationship with the victim and started calling her at
his room. She disclosed the informant that she started going to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66594 of 2025(8) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
the house of the petitioner. On the false promise of marriage, on
20.07.2025, when the victim has gone to Mahabalipur Market
for purchasing some articles, the petitioner took her to his room,
from there, police recovered her. The victim told her that the
petitioner has started establishing physical relationship on false
promise of marriage and that she is having pregnancy of two
months. During course of investigation, the victim has given her
statement under Section 183 of BNSS wherein she has stated
that she was having friendship with the petitioner and was on
talking terms from the last six months. The petitioner was
having her obscene photographs and he started blackmailing her
and called her at Patna on the false promise of marriage. On
20.07.2025, when she went to Patna on the call of the petitioner,
her mother started searching her. Her aunt told her that she has
come to Patna. The petitioner is neighbourer of her aunt. She
was recovered by police from the house of Sandeep the
petitioner. She has further stated that she is pregnant and the
petitioner is denying marriage with her. During course of
examination, her medical examination was also conducted and
her pregnancy test was found positive and the doctor conducting
the medical examination report of the victim has opined that her
age is assessed to be 17-19 years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66594 of 2025(8) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely
been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the relationship between the petitioner
and the victim was on will and it was not forced one. It has also
been submitted that it was a relationship between two majors as
the doctor has opined that the age of the victim is 17-19 years. A
statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the
petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is
languishing in judicial custody since 22.07.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular
bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that from
perusal of the diary, it will transpire that on the basis of school
first attended, the date of birth of the victim is 15.02.2009 and
the date of occurrence 20.07.2025 it means, on the date of
occurrence, she was less than 16 years. The date of birth
certificate from the school first attended is one of the documents
to be considered for determination of use in view of Rule 12(3)
of J.J. Rules and also Section 94 of J.J. Act. It has also been
submitted that the victim is pregnant which is apparent from the
medical examination report.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66594 of 2025(8) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the nature of allegation against this petitioner,
this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this
stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same in view of Section 35(2) of the POCSO
Act.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 12.02.2026.
Uploading Date 25.02.2026.
Transmission Date 25.02.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.