Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond and sureties under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in offences under Section 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act. Notices were issued to the informant, who failed to appear despite a court‑ordered paper publication. The petitioner claimed a clean record and alleged that the informant’s minor daughter was allegedly abducted by three persons, but the informant did not raise alarm, suggesting false implication. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, should the petitioner be arrested or surrender within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the BNSS, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the failure of the informant to appear after notice and paper publication justifies granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and the circumstances of the alleged incident warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 482(2), 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- BNSS
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
Deepak Kumar son of Pramod Saw @ Pramendra Sav @ Nirkal Saw Resident
of Village- ward no.14, Ram Nagar, Police Station- Masaurhi, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. sheela devi wife of Nabal Paswan Resident Of village- Kajibigha, Ps-
Gauribigha, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Balwant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 76 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act,
and Sections 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
notices were issued on 22-1-2026, thereafter again on 10-3-
2026, but the notice was not received by the informant as such
by order dated 22-4-2026, the petitioner was directed to make
paper publication. It is further submitted that despite paper
publication, the informant chooses not to appear and contest.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80906 of 2025(6) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that her minor daughter aged about 12 years had gone to
attend the nature’s call at 7 PM, when she was intercepted by
the petitioner, Mantosh and Himanshu, who took her to a field
and tried to commit wrong, but on alarm, accused fled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable
that had three persons tried to commit wrong with the minor
daughter of the informant, in that event, she would have been in
a position to raise alarm. It is thus submitted that this perhaps
explains why informant despite valid service of notice chooses
not to appear and contest.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80906 of 2025(6) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.