Patna High Court
Rahul PasiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Pasi, arrested on 16 July 2025, applied for bail in connection with a POCSO case alleging kidnapping of a minor with intent to marry her. The prosecution alleged that the informant's granddaughter was abducted by the petitioner, and the victim’s statement, recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, corroborated the kidnapping. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and asserted that the allegations were false, alleging the victim was in love with him. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, and the victim’s minor status. Considering the victim’s statement and the nature of the offences, the court refused the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a POCSO kidnapping case involving a minor
- Whether the statements of the minor victim under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita preclude bail
- Application of Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act in bail considerations
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 180, 183, 3(5), 96
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- minor
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- sexual offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79194 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- LAKHNAUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Rahul Pasi S/o Shambhu Pasi Resident of village- Laufa Pasi Tola, P.S.-
Lakhnour, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Videshi Pasi S/o Late Faudar Pasi R/o vill - Loupha Pasi Tola, ward no. 7,
P.S.- Lakhnour, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate
: Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
16.07.2025, in connection with Lakhnaur P.S. Case No. 80 of
2025 corresponding to POCSO No.148 of 2025 and G.R. No.
1368 of 2025, FIR dated 15.07.2025 registered for the offence
under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 and 8,12 of POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that when
the informant got information that his grand-daughter was
abducted by the petitioner then he went to the house of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79194 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
petitioner and on enquiry, found that the petitioner kidnapped
her daughter with intention to marry her and when the informant
asked his family members to return her daughter, then the
accused persons ousted him from their door and abused him and
threatened him also.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. Infact the victim was in love
with the petitioner and due to this reason the informant has
falsely implicated the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in
judicial custody since 16.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under
Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS in which she has stated that
the petitioner had kidnapped her and as per her date of birth she
was minor on the date of occurrence.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case supported by statement of the victim, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Lakhnaur P.S.
Case No. 80 of 2025 pending in the Court of Additional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79194 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Madhubani.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…