Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Suman Kumar @ Suman Sao @ Suman SawversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied the petitioner's application for regular bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Suman Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 329(4) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the victim found the petitioner sleeping beside her and that he fled when she raised an alarm. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR despite the police station being only 6 km away, and pointed out his lack of prior criminal record. The victim’s statement under section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was recorded, and charges had already been framed and the trial was underway. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act after the victim’s statement and framing of charges.
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the petitioner’s clean record warrant bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • POCSO Act
  • victim statement
  • charge framed
  • trial expedite

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78151 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2025 Thana- BEN P.S. District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Suman Kumar @ Suman Sao @ Suman Saw S/o Subodh Saw R/o village -
                 Nosha, P.S - Ben, District – Nalanda, Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XXX D/o Sanjay Chaudhary R/o village - Nosha, P.S - Ben, District -
                  Nalanda, Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rishav Dev, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER
3   11-02-2026                      1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                    2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Ben P.S. Case no.114 of

                   2025 registered under sections 329(4) and 74 of the Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

                                    3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that on waking up in the night, she found the petitioner sleeping

                   by her side. On the informant raising hulla, it is stated that the

                   petitioner escaped.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Inspite of the

                   police station being only at a distance of 6 k.m., there is an

                   unexplained delay of two days in lodging of the FIR. The

                   material that has transpired in course of investigation does not
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78151 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      support the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody since

                      2.9.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. Chargesheet has been

                      submitted in the case.

                                        5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

                      A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

                      Learned counsel for the informant submits that the victim has

                      supported the prosecution case in her statement under section

                      183 B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that charge has been framed

                      in the learned trial Court and the trial has proceeded.

                                      6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the contents

                      of the statement of the victim under section 183 B.N.S.S. and

                      charge having been framed in the learned trial Court, the Court

                      is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the

                      application is rejected.

                                     7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

                      and to conclude the same within a period of six months from the

                      date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.


                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.