Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the statutory requirement to record the victim’s statement within thirty days and to conclude the trial within one year had been violated, warranting the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the allegations.
Summary
Pintu Kumar was accused of raping a minor girl, creating an obscene video and blackmailing her, with the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and found to be pregnant. The petitioner’s earlier bail application was denied, but a second application was filed arguing that the POCSO Act mandates recording the victim’s evidence within 30 days and completing the trial within one year, neither of which had been complied with. The court noted that more than a year and five months had elapsed since cognizance, the victim’s statement remained unrecorded, and only two of thirteen prosecution witnesses had been examined. While the State highlighted the seriousness of the offence, the court emphasized the procedural delays and the petitioner’s clean antecedent. Consequently, the court granted bail with a bond of Rs.20,000 and specific conditions to ensure trial cooperation and prevent tampering.
Issues considered
- Whether the statutory time limits under Sections 35(1) and 35(2) of the POCSO Act, regarding recording of the victim’s statement and completion of trial, justify granting bail despite the gravity of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 35(1), 35(2)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- trial delay
- victim statement
- rape of minor
- blackmail
- procedural default
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75448 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Pintu Kumar @ Sumit Kumar S/o Musahru Saw @ Musharu R/o Village- Piri
Bazar, P.S.- Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanti Devi W/o Prabhu Saw R/o Village- Piri Bazar, P.S.- Piri Bazar,
District- Lakhisarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Isha Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail, as earlier his prayer for bail was
turned down by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed
in Cr. Misc. No.35102 of 2024, taking into consideration the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC,
wherein she has categorically stated that she was subjected to
rape by the petitioner and he had also made some obscene video
of the victim; on the basis of that the victim was subjected to
blackmail. During the medical examination, the victim was also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75448 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/5
found pregnant and there are cogent materials suggesting
involvement of the petitioner.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, at the outset,
submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected
on merit and, as such, she does not want to persuade the Court
by making submission touching on the merit of the case.
However, this fact cannot be ignored that Section 35 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
mandates that the evidence of a child (victim) shall be recorded
within a period of thirty days of taking cognizance of the
offence and reason for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the
Special Court. It is needless to observe that cognizance in the
matter had been taken on 26.07.2024 and till date, the evidence
of the victim has not been recorded. It is further contended that
Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act also directs the Special Court
to complete the trial as far as possible within a period of one
year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. The
same has also not been done. The incarceration of the petitioner
for more than two years clearly suggests that he is being
punished because of the laches on the part of the prosecution,
which has failed to complete the trial within the period
prescribed. To support the aforesaid contention, the orders of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75448 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/5
two of the co-ordinate Benches passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.28722
of 2025 and 30568 of 2025 have been placed on record.
Referring to the afore-noted orders, it is further contended that
in both these matters, the victim was subjected to alleged sexual
assault, however, the Court taking note of the fact that the
prosecution could not be able to examine the victim within the
period prescribed and the trial has not been concluded, the
prayer for bail of the applicants were allowed vide orders dated
07.10.2025 and 31.10.2025.
4. This Court has also called for the present status of
the trial and it has been apprised to this Court that out of thirteen
charge-sheet witnesses, till date only two prosecution witnesses
have been examined, including the victim’s maternal grand-
father.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that a
very serious allegation has been levelled against the petitioner
of committing rape upon a minor girl, besides she was subjected
to blackmail by preparing a video.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the mandate of Section 35(1) and (2) of the POCSO Act,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75448 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
4/5
which clearly directs the learned Trial Court to conclude trial,
preferably within a period of one year from the date of order
taking cognizance and the statement of the victim must be
recorded within thirty days; however, more than a year and five
months have been elapsed since the order taking cognizance
having been passed, but till date the statement of the victim has
not been recorded, besides the fact that the petitioner has been
incarcerated since 11.11.2023 and has absolutely fair
antecedent, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai in
POCSO Case No.20 of 2024, Mahila P.S. Case No.97 of 2023,
subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close
relatives of the petitioner with further following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of
the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date
of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or
intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75448 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
5/5
(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates
without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be
cancelled.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…