Patna High Court
Vijay Shankar Singh @ Shankar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the stage of trial warranted continued custody.
Summary
Vijay Shankar Singh, arrested on 12 July 2024, sought regular bail in a POCSO case (Case No. 60 of 2024) involving offences under IPC Sections 354, 34, 366(A) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. His earlier bail application had been rejected and a subsequent application was withdrawn. The trial court had examined four of five charge‑sheet witnesses, with one independent witness yet to be examined. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged rape, the victim’s age (born 15 July 2011, thus a minor at the time of the incident), and the victim’s recorded statement under Cr.P.C. Section 164. The High Court, considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of trial, refused to grant bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving serious offences and a minor victim.
- Whether the stage of trial and the possibility of tampering with evidence justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 354, 366(A)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- trial stage
- minor victim
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71569 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Vijay Shankar Singh @ Shankar Singh Son of Keshav Singh Resident of
Village - Marichaon, P.S.- Bhabua, District - Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Y Resident of Village - Ankori Mela, P.S.- Durgawati, District - Kaimur at
Bhabua.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 10-04-2026 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
12.07.2024 in connection with POCSO Case No. 60 of 2024
arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
18.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 34
and 366(A) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner
has been rejected vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 62422 of 2024 by this Court. Thereafter, the
petitioner has again moved for grant of regular bail before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71569 of 2025(7) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
Court in Cr. Misc. No. 52025 of 2025 which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 30.07.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2024 and
the trial is not in progress.
5. Vide order dated 09.10.2025 a report was called
with regard to the present stage of trial. Report of the learned
Trial Court dated 15.10.2025 reveals that out of 5 charge sheet
witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and the case is
pending for the examination of one independent witness.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that the
petitioner and other accused persons have committed rape upon
the victim. Apart from that the victim has supported the case of
the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the date of birth of victim is
15.07.2011 which suggest that on the date of occurrence the
victim was below the age of 18 years.
7. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in
the FIR supported by the victim as well as report of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71569 of 2025(7) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
Trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with POCSO Case No. 60 of 2024 arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024 pending in the court of learned
Special Judge POCSO Act cum Additional District Judge VI,
Kaimur at Bhabua.
8. Prayer is refused.
9. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite
and conclude the trial at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…