Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar Baitha @ Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Raushan Kumar Baitha, was arrested in connection with a case alleging the abduction of the informant's minor daughter and related offences under Sections 96, 61(2) and 65(2) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that Baitha, along with others, forcibly took the girl in a four‑wheel vehicle and threatened to sell or marry her. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claiming a clean antecedent, that the FIR was fabricated, and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS was unsupportive and she refused medical examination. The court examined the lack of substantive evidence, the petitioner’s clean record, and the possibility of false implication. Considering these factors, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was issued with a directive to the lower court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent but not to delay the release.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the bail application for the petitioner accused under the BNS and POCSO statutes?
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny bail given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and alleged lack of evidence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- POCSO
- clean antecedent
- fabricated FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6927 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Raushan Kumar Baitha @ Raushan Kumar S/O Sri Baitha R/o Village -
Baghari, P.S- Runnisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX S/O Late Ram Aanchal Rai R/o Village - Baghari,WArd no.- 09 P.S-
Runnisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Bhuwan Jayant, Advocate
: Mr. Ranjeeta Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Ayush Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ayush Kumar, learned counsel for the informant
and Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
30.09.2025 in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 296
of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 96 and
61(2), 65(2) of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that his minor
daughter, left home on 07.08.2025 at approximately 01:30 PM
for going to the coaching center (located at Baghadi Chowk).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6927 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/5
However, when his minor daughter did not arrive, the coaching
center's teacher, Raman Kumar Rai, called his home and asked
why his daughter had not come to the coaching center. His wife
then informed the coaching center teacher that her daughter had
left home for coaching at 01:30 PM. Informant's wife Meena
Devi and his family members then began searching for her.
Meanwhile, informant wife informed him of the incident via
phone. Informant returned home from Delhi on 08.08.2025 at
around 12:00 noon in 2025. At that very moment, informant was
greeted by the villagers. On the evening of 08.08.2025,
informant got information that his daughter was forcibly taken
from his house in a white coloured four wheeler (Scorpio) in
front of the new shop of Jaikumar Chaudhary (which is empty
and closed) in the south. It is next alleged that his minor
daughter was forcibly taken away from the village towards
Koralhiya pond in the West by opening the gate and she was
made to sit inside. It is next alleged that informant also got
information that in the four-wheeleer Scorpio vehicle, 1. Roshan
Kumar Baitha S/o- Sri Baitha, 2. Rajesh Kumar S/o- Late
Lalbabu Baitha, 3. Deepak Rajak S/o- Sarobar Baitha & 4. Baby
Devi W/o- Shri Baitha were also present. Thereafter, informant
along with his family, went to Veevi Devi, house on 08.08.2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6927 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/5
at around 06:00 PM and asked for his daughter's return.
Meanwhile, Veevi Devi informed her husband, Mr. Baitha, over
the phone that everyone was demanding the girl's return. Mr.
Baitha also began abusing him over the phone and said. "Call
Samang and beat everyone out of the door and drive them
away." Meanwhile, the aforementioned Rajesh Kumar, Deepak
Rajak also arrived and began abusing him. It is further alleged
that after shutting down her mobile, Beevi Devi also continued
abusing informant, saying, "You all heard my husband (Mr.
Baitha) on the phone. Now go wherever you want; you won't
find your daughter. She will be sold," Informant fear that they
will forcibly kidnap his minor daughter and sell her for
prostitution, or they will marry her off and then kill her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has not
supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from the aforesaid,
in paragraph-30 of the case diary she has also refused for her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6927 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/5
medical examination.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submit that petitioner is named in the FIR and apart from that
the petitioner has committed the crime in question and the
victim was minor at the time of occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, let
the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Exclusive Special Judge
(Rape and POCSO Act), Sitarmarhi in connection with
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 296 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6927 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
5/5
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…