Patna High Court
Himanshu Kumar @ ChootuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The bail application was rejected; the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Himanshu Kumar, was charged with rape of a minor under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail after being in custody since June 1, 2024, having previously been denied anticipatory bail and regular bail. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner stayed at the informant's house and raped her minor daughter. The trial court reported that all prosecution witnesses except the medical officer had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within two months. The High Court found no new ground to revisit the earlier bail refusals and consequently rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to dispose of the case promptly.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a rape case involving a minor under IPC 376 and POCSO Act Section 4, considering the stage of trial and prior bail rejections.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- IPC 376
- POCSO Act
- anticipatory bail
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68006 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali
======================================================
Himanshu Kumar @ Chootu, Son of Tapeshwar Sahni, Resident of Village -
Dharhara, Paura Madan Singh, Police Station - Sarai in the District of
Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kalawati Devi Wife of Lal Bihari Sahni Resident of Village - Dharhara,
Police Station - Sarai in the District of Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Gulnar Begum, APP
: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Hajipur Mahila P.S. Case No. 42 of 2023,
registered for the alleged offences under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant allowed
the petitioner to stay in her house in night as the informant and
her husband stayed outside in Hyderabad and the petitioner
committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68006 of 2025(5) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
this is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Court. Earlier, the prayers for anticipatory bail as well as regular
bail of the petitioner were rejected vide orders dated 04.04.2024
& 04.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 21137 of 2024 & 66412
of 2024, respectively. The learned counsel further submits that
the petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2024, but the trial has not
been concluded till date. The learned counsel further submits
that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
5. The learned APP as well as learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 vehemently oppose the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 submits that there is specific allegation against the
petitioner for committing rape with the daughter of the
informant.
6. A report dated 31.01.2026 has been received from
the learned trial court about the present stage of trial wherein it
has been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been
examined in this case except for medical officer and the learned
trial court has further submitted that the trial was likely to be
concluded within two months.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 submits that all the prosecution witnesses have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68006 of 2025(5) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
examined.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any new
ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence,
his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
9. However, the learned trial court is directed to abide
by its undertaking and dispose of the matter at the earliest.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…