Patna High Court
Mannu Kumar @ Bhikhari @ Manu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the supporting medical and forensic evidence warranted the petitioner’s continued custody.
Summary
Mannu Kumar was arrested on 9 July 2025 in connection with a POCSO case alleging sexual offences against a four‑year‑old child. The prosecution charged him under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 352 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic/Criminal Statutes, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, relying on a medical report, forensic‑science‑lab report and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183. The petitioner pleaded that he has a clean antecedent, was falsely implicated and the FIR is fabricated. The informant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the evidentiary material. The High Court, after considering the seriousness of the offences and the supporting evidence, refused the bail application, concluding that the petitioner should remain in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor, given the nature of the charges and the evidentiary material.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences against child
- medical evidence
- forensic report
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70958 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2025 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
Mannu Kumar @ Bhikhari @ Manu Kumar S/o- Sri Satendra Prasad @
Satendra Pd Yadav R/v- Kajipur, Ps- Doriganj, Distt-Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjay Kumar S/o- Nagendra Prasad R/v- Kajipur, Ps- Doriganj, Distt-Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
09.07.2025 in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 243 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 06.07.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and
Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner has
committed unnatural offence with the informant's son who is
aged about 4 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70958 of 2025(6) dt.09-04-2026
2/2
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner has committed unnatural offence with the victim and
the medical report as well as F.S.L report of the victim also
confirms the same. Apart from that the statement of the victim
was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 in which he
has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 243 of 2025 pending in the court of
learned Exclusive Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge,
POCSO, Saran at Chapra.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…