Patna High Court

Santosh @ Shiv Prasad Rai @ Shiv Prasad RoyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The bail petition is rejected.

Summary

The petitioner, Santosh @ Shiv Prasad Rai, was charged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 76, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act for allegedly indecently touching his eight‑year‑old niece’s private parts after she disrobed to pick mangoes. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S. formed the core of the prosecution’s case, while a medical examination reportedly showed no injuries. The petitioner pleaded innocence and sought bail, arguing lack of forensic evidence and no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s age. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioner to re‑apply for bail after six months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with sexual assault of a minor under the B.N.S., 2023 and the POCSO Act.
Whether the victim’s statement and the absence of medical evidence justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 76
POCSO Act — s. 17, 8

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
minor
POCSO
B.N.S.
criminal procedure
trial expedite

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76592 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Santosh @ Shiv Prasad Rai @ Shiv Prasad Roy Son of Gaaneshi Ray @
                 Ganesh Roy Resident of Village -Mashipur Kanhauli P.S. -Bishunpur, Dist-
                 Vaishali

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XXX wife of YY Resident of Village -Saraya P.S.- Guthani, Dist- Siwan

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   19-01-2026                    Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Siwan Mahila P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 76, 3(5) of

                   the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 8/17 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the

                   minor niece of the informant, aged about eight years, has gone

                   to pick mangoes. It is alleged that the petitioner has touched her

                   indecently on her private part after disrobing her. During the

                   course of the investigation, the victim has given her statement

                   recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she has stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76592 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
                                            2/3




          that the petitioner has touched her private parts.

                       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 in medical

          examination, nothing has come. He also 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 31.07.2025.

                       5. The application for bail is opposed by the learned

          counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.

          Learned counsel for the informant submits that the victim is

          aged about eight years and she has supported the case of the

          prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the

          BNSS.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the age

          of the victim and the kind of allegation against the petitioner,

          this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail,

          however, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for

          bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

                       7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76592 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…