Patna High Court
SHIV CHAND KUMAR @ SHIVCHAND BIND @ SHIVCHANDRA KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner in the POCSO case.
Summary
The petitioner, Shiv Chand Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Section 70(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging rape of a minor. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, raped the informant's daughter, who has given a statement supporting the charge. The petitioner contended that the medical examination showed no injuries or spermatozoa, arguing false implication and lack of evidence of sexual assault. The State and the second opposite party opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority, alleged kidnapping, and that the trial had already proceeded with two witnesses examined. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the minor victim, and the progress of trial, the Court refused bail, directing the informant to produce witnesses and the trial court to expedite the case within six months, after which bail may be re‑applied.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving a minor victim.
- Whether the absence of medical injuries or spermatozoa negates the seriousness of the alleged offence for bail purposes.
- Whether the progress of trial and statements of the minor affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 70(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- minor victim
- rape
- medical evidence
- trial proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77042 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Shiv Chand Kumar @ Shivchand Bind @ Shivchandra Kumar S/O- Shankar
Bind R/V- Bhadaura Ps- Chainpur Dist- Kaimur At Bhabua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Munna Kumar Sahani @ Munna Prasad Bind S/o- Late Rajendra Prasad
Bind R/v- Bhadaura Ps- Chainpur Dist- Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sonu Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad, Advocate
: Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 70(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 6
of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with other co-accused are alleged to have committed rape upon the
daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case although
the medical examination of the victim girl indicates no internal or
external injury on her body nor any spermatozoa was found, as
such, an attempt of sexual assault was not found. It has been
submitted that during the course of investigation, it appears that the
victim girl was merely hiding in the room of the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77042 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
petitioner, having no criminal antecedent, is in custody since
23.07.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 have opposed the grant of bail on the ground
that the victim is a minor girl, who was kidnapped and kept in
confinement of this petitioner. Further, the victim has also supported
the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S. and trial has also proceeded with two out of eight charge-
sheeted witnesses have already been examined.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the trial has already
proceeded, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail at this
stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected in connection with POCSO Case No.122 of 2025, arising
out of Mahila P.S. Case No.56 of 2025.
7. However, the informant is directed to produce all his
witnesses and the learned Trial Court is also directed to expedite the
trial and conclude the same, preferably, within a period of six
months, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…