Patna High Court
Hemant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
Hemant Kumar, a 75% physically disabled man, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 365, 366-A, 376 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12. An earlier application for bail was rejected, but the petitioner argued that his severe disability, the month-long delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical examination of the alleged victim, and an existing neighbour dispute create fresh grounds for bail. The State opposed the relief. The court considered the new disability evidence, the procedural lapses, and the nature of the allegations, and held that the petitioner could be released on bail if arrested, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court ordered bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a close relative, and imposed cooperation conditions.
Issues considered
- What impact does the petitioner's severe physical disability have on the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical examination of the victim justify anticipatory bail?
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences under IPC and POCSO Act preclude anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 365, 366-A, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- disability
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- Section 438
- bail conditions
- delay in FIR
- medical examination
- neighbor dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75810 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2024 Thana- Banma Itahari District- Saharsa
======================================================
Hemant Kumar S/o Manoj Bhagat R/o Vill- Banma Dih Tola, Ward No. 14,
P.S.- Banma Itahari, Distt- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pramila Devi W/o Baiju Thakur R/o Vill- Banma Dih Tola, Ward No. 14,
P.S.- Banma Itahari, Distt- Saharsa
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
for the State. Despite valid service of notice indicating that the
same was received by opposite party no.2 in person, no one is
present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 365, 366-
A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8/12 of the
POCSO Act.
3. By the present application, the petitioner has renewed his
prayer for anticipatory bail. Earlier vide detailed order dated
11.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.77565 of 2024, the prayer of
the petitioner was rejected, while the petitioner no.2, who is the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75810 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
father of the petitioner, was granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a
fresh ground of consideration for anticipatory bail has arisen
which has been brought on record is that the petitioner suffers
from 75% of disability as his left leg has been amputated
beyond thigh as is evident from the photograph of the
petitioner which has also been brought on record. The unique
disability ID issued by the Government of India has also been
annexed as Annexure-P/3 to this application. It is submitted
that with such kind of disability the allegations made against
the petitioner does not seem to be probable. It is also a fact that
the F.I.R. was recorded after delay of about one month which
has been recorded in the earlier order dated 11.04.2025 and
enmity also persisted between the parties who are neighbours
on account of some transaction of money coupled with the fact
that no medical examination of the victim girl was undertaken
in order to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint
petition.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and especially the fact that fresh ground of physical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75810 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
disability of the petitioner has been raised which was not placed
earlier for consideration, let the above named petitioner, be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
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 Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Banma Itahari P.S. Case No. 50 of
2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438
(2) of the Cr.P.C., subject to further condition that
(i) One of the bailors would be close relative/family members of
the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and trial
and in case of any act of non-cooperation, the opposite party
no.2 would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation
of bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…