Patna High Court
Balram Kumar @ Balram Kumar RajakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond and specific conditions.
Summary
Balram Kumar Rajak was arrested for alleged kidnapping of a minor girl, an offence punishable under Section 87 of the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident, and the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. were contradictory, with the girl refusing medical examination. The petitioner, who has no prior criminal record, has been in custody since 18 May 2025 and no prosecution witnesses have been examined. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the POCSO charge, while the petitioner argued the delay, contradictory statements, and lack of evidence warranted release. The court, noting the FIR delay, the victim’s inconsistent statements, and the absence of examined witnesses, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions of personal surety and regular court attendance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping and sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the five‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s contradictory statements affect the bail decision.
- Whether the lack of examined prosecution witnesses justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- POCSO
- delay in FIR
- contradictory statements
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77539 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- TARAPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Balram Kumar @ Balram Kumar Rajak S/o Rambilash Rajak Resident of
Mohalla Sahora, P.S- Sangrampur, Dist- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mr. X Son of Y Resident of Village- Gogachak Tarapur,, P.S.- Tarapur,
Distt.-Munger
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
: Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
: Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajan Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Kumari Nitu, 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 87 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that the petitioner kidnapped his minor daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the
outset, that there is a delay of five days in lodging the First
Information Report and the informant is in the habit of filing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77539 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
such cases as after filing of the present case another case being
Shambhuganj P.S. Case No.234 of 2025 dated 17.09.2025
(Annexure-2) was filed against some other persons concerning
the kidnapping of the same victim girl. It has been
submittedthat the statement of the victim girl under Section 183
of the B.N.S.S. stands in contradiction to her statement under
Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. and she has admitted that she had
left home on instructions of the petitioner and had gone to
Sultanganj then Bhagalpur and other places. Although, she has
alleged that rape was committed with her, but has also stated
that both of them had come back from the said hotel and she
had known the petitioner since 2022. It is also a fact that the
victim has refused her medical examination. The petitioner is in
custody since 18.05.2025 with no criminal antecedent and
charges have been framed against the petitioner, however, no
witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the grant
of bail on the ground that the present case is one under the
POCSO Act and there is allegation against the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail
petition.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77539 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the factum of delay in lodging
the F.I.R., coupled with the statement of the victim and also
considering that only charges have been framed and there is no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, let the above
named petitioner, be released on bail 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 Exclusive
Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cum-District and 6 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Munger/concerned Court below in connection
with Tarapur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2025 subject to condition
that:-
(i) One of the bailors will be his own blood
relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister and/or his
wife.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically
present in court on each and every date during trial and in the
event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the
learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…