Patna High Court

Pentar Kumar @ Dineshwar Kumar @ Pentar Dhanuk @ Petar KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner was charged with kidnapping a minor girl for marriage under IPC sections 363 and 366A and with an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He claimed the girl eloped with him and that he was unaware of her minority, citing her own statement. The victim and her mother testified in support of the prosecution, and the petitioner has three prior criminal convictions. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the POCSO charge and the petitioner’s role as the main accused. The court, considering the victim’s testimony, the seriousness of the offences, and the lack of a speedy trial, rejected the bail application and ordered the trial to be expedited within six months.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under IPC sections 363, 366A and POCSO Act.
Whether the alleged consent and elopement of the minor affect the bail decision.
Whether prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Whether the trial is likely to conclude soon enough to justify bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366A
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
minor
POCSO
IPC
criminal antecedents
trial expedite

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69842 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-494 Year-2023 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Pentar Kumar @ Dineshwar Kumar @ Pentar Dhanuk @ Petar Kumar S/O
                 Jiut Dhanuk R/O Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Shail Kumari Devi W/O Krishna Paswan R/O Village- Shahpur, P.S.-
                  Shahpur, District- Bhojpur
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Diwakar
                                                  Mr. Deepak Kumar
                                                  Mr. Sonu Kumar Yadav
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER
5   10-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian

                   Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

                                 3. Petitioner and other accused persons are said to have

                   kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant for the purpose of

                   marriage.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   present case arose out of a love affair and the victim herself eloped

                   with the petitioner for the purposes of marrying him. Petitioner

                   had no knowledge that she is a minor and moreover even in her

                   164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim had accepted the fact that she had

                   herself eloped from her house and went to Benglore and

                   solemnized marriage with the petitioner. However, the bail
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69842 of 2025(5) dt.10-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       rejection order indicates that both the victim and her mother have

                       been examined during trial and they have both supported the case

                       of the prosecution. It is further submitted that petitioner is in

                       custody since 20.02.2025 and there is no likelihood of conclusion

                       of trial in near future.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

                       application for bail on the ground that the petitioner is the main

                       accused and the case is one under the POCSO Act and the

                       petitioner has three criminal antecedents.

                                        6.    Taking     into    consideration   the   facts   and

                       circumstances and also considering the fact that the trial is

                       proceeding and the bail rejection order indicates that both the

                       victim and her mother have already been examined who have

                       supported the prosecution case during trial, I am not inclined to

                       enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer

                       for bail is rejected in connection Shahpur P.S. Case No. 494 of

                       2023.

                                        7. However, since the case concerns POCSO Act,

                       the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the

                       same preferably within a period of six months.


                                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…