Patna High Court
Sukadev Das @ Sukadev RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Sukadev Das, a 20‑year‑old resident of West Champaran, was charged with kidnapping a 17‑year‑old girl, the daughter of an informant, under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. indicated she had gone with the petitioner of her own will for a marriage proposal, with no medical evidence of sexual assault. The petitioner, in custody since 8 July 2025, applied for bail, arguing the delay in the FIR and the consensual nature of the alleged relationship. The State and the second opposite party opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. Considering the delay, the victim’s statements, the petitioner’s young age, and the absence of evidence of sexual assault, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, directing compliance with the lower court’s conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a kidnapping and POCSO case given the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s statements indicating consent.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 96
- B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- consensual relationship
- sexual assault allegation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73676 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- PURUSHOTTAMPUR District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Sukadev Das @ Sukadev Ram Son of Madan Das Resident of Village-
Bhluhiya, Ps - Purushotampur, Dist- West champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ Fathers name of YYY Resident of Village - Prera, Ps- Purshotampur,
Dist- West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Bimlesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned
Advocate, Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and
Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is
alleged to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant by
way of allurement on the pretext of marriage.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73676 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
at the outset, that the First Information Report has been lodged
after a delay of five days inasmuch as, while occurrence had
taken place on 14.05.2025, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.05.2025,
for which no plausible explanation has been tendered. F.I.R.
makes it clear that the informant knew that his daughter, aged
about 17 years, had gone along with the petitioner, while he
waited for five days for lodging the First Information Report.
Further after recovery, the statement of the victim girl was
recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has
admitted that she had gone along with the petitioner, who is also
aged about 20 years, by her own will and by the time they
reached Delhi, there was several phone calls from the petitioner’s
father, as such, they came back and presented themselves at the
police office. However, subsequently her statement under Section
183 of the B.N.S.S. was recorded, but after a lapse of three days
wherein she was subjected to tutoring as she was in company of
her parents and guardians, but even on reading of the said
statement it would transpire that she had gone along with the
petitioner to Delhi for the purposes of marriage and it was he,
who had brought her back to the Court from where she had gone
to the Mahila Police Station. So far as the medical evidence is
concerned, paragraph no.80 indicates that there is no recent
evidence of any sexual assault neither does the victim talk of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73676 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
any sexual assault etc. upon her. The petitioner is in custody since
08.07.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted on
05.08.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the
grant of bail by submitting that there is a direct allegation on this
petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the delay in lodging of the First
Information Report, coupled with the statement of the victim both
under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. and also considering
that the petitioner is also a young boy aged about 20 years, who is
lodged in custody since 08.07.2025 for an offence which arises
out of love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, let
the above named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth-cum-Special Judge, POCSO,
West Champaran, Bettiah/concerned Court below in connection
with Purushottam P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.