Patna High Court
Anand KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Anand Kumar applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging kidnapping and alleged rape of a minor who was also said to be carrying Rs. 40,000. The petitioner claimed innocence, no prior criminal record, and that a compromise petition had been filed by the informant. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement and a medical report indicating the victim, a minor of about 17‑18 years, alleged rape by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the High Court declined to grant bail, directing the petitioner to renew the application after six months and ordering the trial court to expedite the trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The bail petition was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences under the B.N.S., 2023 and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement and medical report constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the trial must be expedited under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 3(5), 96
- POCSO Act — s. 35, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- compromise petition
- expedited trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79868 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anand Kumar Son of Arun Kumar Mahto @ Arun Mahto Resident Of Village
-Shyampur Baithaniya, Ps -Majhauliya, Dist -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lal Mati Devi Wife of Rakesh Mahto Resident of village- Sugaodih, Po and
Ps- Sugauli, dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023
and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the
petitioner and others. It is also alleged that the victim was
carrying Rs. 40,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79868 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that after knowing the truth, the informant
has filed a compromise petition. He further submits that a
statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner
has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial
custody since 01.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and submits that from perusal of the statement of
the victim, it is clear that the victim has specifically stated that
this petitioner has committed wrong act with her in the room. As
per the medical examination report, the victim is a minor, and
from perusal of the medical examination report of the victim,
she was aged about 17-18 years. The victim has stated before
the medical board also that she was being raped by this
petitioner, though the board has not given any objective finding
regarding rape.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79868 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial so as to conclude the same in the time limit as provided
under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.