Patna High Court
Ajit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted at this stage and ordered the trial to be concluded within two months, permitting a fresh bail application thereafter.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act for allegedly attempting to outrage the modesty of a 14‑year‑old girl. He applied for bail, claiming innocence, that the alleged incident occurred in broad daylight and that there was a consensual love affair. The prosecution highlighted that five witnesses have been recorded, with three already examined, and warned that releasing the petitioner could lead to tampering of evidence. The State opposed bail and suggested that the trial be expedited, offering the petitioner a chance to renew his bail plea later. The High Court directed the trial court to complete the remaining witness testimony within two months and held that the bail application stands disposed, allowing the petitioner to seek bail again if the trial is not concluded within that period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under serious offences including POCSO and SC/ST Act at the current stage of trial
- Whether the risk of evidence tampering justifies denial of bail
- Whether the trial can be expedited within a specified time frame
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 351(2), 352, 74, 75(2), 76
- POCSO Act — s. 12, 8
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- minor victim
- SC/ST Act
- evidence tampering
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76666 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- UPHARA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Ajit Kumar S/O Umesh Yadav Resident Of Village- Bhaluyar, P.S- Uphara,
Dist.- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. YYY D/O XXX Resident Of Village- Bhaluyar, P.S- Uphara, Dist.-
Aurangabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the informant, and learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner is seeking for bail in connection
with POCSO G.R. No.97 of 2025, arising out of Uphara P.S.
Case No.89 of 2025, dated 10.08.2025, registered for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 351(2), 352,
74, 75(2), 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under
Section 8, 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76666 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
3. As per the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have
attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant, aged about
14 years, while she was alone in her house. Upon her raising
an alarm, her brother arrived at the spot to rescue her,
whereupon a scuffle ensued between the informant’s brother
and the petitioner.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in the present case. It is contended that he has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that
the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in broad
daylight at about 12:00 noon, which makes the prosecution
case doubtful. It is also submitted that there was a love affair
between the petitioner and the informant. Learned Senior
Counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to
cooperate in the trial if the privilege of bail is extended to him.
Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has one criminal
antecedent, in which he is already on bail, and is in judicial
custody since 12.08.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant appears
pursuant to the notice and submits that, altogether, there are
five prosecution witnesses, out of which the evidence of three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76666 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
witnesses has already been recorded. It is further submitted
that only two witnesses are yet to be examined and, therefore,
the trial is at an advanced stage and is likely to be concluded
within one month. It is also contended that, if the petitioner is
released on bail at this stage, there is an apprehension that he
may tamper with the prosecution evidence, thereby affecting
the fair conduct of the trial.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail and submits that appropriate directions may be issued to
the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. It is further
submitted that, in the event the trial is not concluded
expeditiously, the petitioner may be granted liberty to renew
his prayer for bail.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties, this
Court finds it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to
make all endeavours to conclude the trial, preferably within a
period of two months from today. Since, out of five
prosecution witnesses, the evidence of three witnesses has
already been examined. It is expected that, by expediting the
process of trial, the evidence of the remaining two witnesses
shall also be examined within the aforesaid period.
8. However, in case the trial is not concluded within
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76666 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
the aforesaid period, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail, which would be considered on its own merits
without being prejudiced by the present order.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…