Patna High Court
Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was not granted to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
Manish Kumar was charged under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 (Sections 65(1), 137, 140(3), 115(2), 351(2)) and the POCSO Act (Sections 4 and 6) for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting the minor daughter of the informant. The victim testified that Kumar, her uncle, forced her onto a bike, tied her, and took her to Patna where a physical relationship was forced. The petitioner argued innocence, citing a three‑day delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical injuries, and no criminal antecedents. The prosecution highlighted the victim’s detailed statement, the familial relationship, and the seriousness of the offences. The court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within six months and allowing the petitioner to re‑apply for bail thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor under the B.N.S., 2023 and POCSO Act.
- Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical injuries affect the bail eligibility.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the familial relationship warrant continued custody.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137, 140(3), 351(2), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
- medical evidence
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76542 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Manish Kumar S/o- Umesh Ray @ Umesh Rai Resident of village- Bidhipur
Karauta Po- Khushrupur, PS- Salimpur Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Santu Rai S/o- Late Vishuni Bhagat Resident of village- Bidhipur Karauta
Po- Khushrupur, PS- Salimpur Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Ms. Tripti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Salimpur P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 137, 140(3) of the
B.N.S., 2023 Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and
subsequently charge sheet has been submitted under Section
65(1), 115(2), 137(1)(b), 140(3), 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
minor daughter of the informant has gone to school, but she did
not return for a considerable time. When she returned on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76542 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
16.05.2025, she was asked where she had gone, and then she
disclosed that the petitioner had forcefully boarded her on a
bike, tied her hands and legs, taken her to Patna, and established
physical relationship with her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim
was missing since 14.05.2025, whereas this case was filed on
17.05.2025. It has been submitted that there is a delay in filing
the FIR of three days. It has further been submitted that from the
perusal of the medical report, it is clear that doctors have not
found any injury on any part of the body of the victim. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the course
of investigation, the victim has stated that she was taken to
Patna, where she was subjected to forceful physical intercourse,
but the I.O. has not identified that place during the entire
investigation. He further submits that a statement has been made
in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
19.05.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76542 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State and
submits that during the course of investigation, the victim has
given her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS,
wherein she has specifically stated that while the victim was
going to school, the petitioner, who is an uncle in relation,
offered to drop her off at school on his bike; after that, the
petitioner did not take her to school rather, he took her to
Khushrupur, and from there, her hands and feet were tied, and
by a pickup van, she was taken to Patna, where a physical
relationship was established forcefully. Learned counsel for the
informant further submits that as far as delay is concerned, as
the victim has returned on 16.05.2025 and the petitioner
happens to be an uncle in relation, they have to muster courage
for filing the FIR. From the perusal of the injury report, it is
clear that the I.O. has not attached all the enclosures, but part of
the injury report has been sent. There is no description of the
examination of the private part of the victim. Admittedly, the
petitioner is an uncle in relation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76542 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
so as to conclude the same within the said period.
8. Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner
stands rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…