Patna High Court
Gopal Gupta @ Gopal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail in view of the serious nature of the offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Gopal Gupta, sought regular bail in a case involving alleged sexual exploitation of a minor, child marriage, and related offences under Sections 64, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 9 of the Protection of Child Marriage Act. The victim’s written application accused the petitioner of luring her under the pretext of marriage, sexually exploiting her, assaulting her family, and later threatening them, while also alleging that the petitioner married another woman and fathered a child with the victim. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS expressed love and affirmed a marriage, thereby undermining the prosecution. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences, the victim’s pregnancy, and the detrimental impact on the victim and child. The Court, after considering the facts, concluded that the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of offences under the BNS, POCSO Act, and Protection of Child Marriage Act involving sexual exploitation of a minor.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS negates the seriousness of the charges for bail considerations.
- Whether the alleged caste-based assault and threats further preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- sexual exploitation
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO
- child marriage
- caste discrimination
- criminal procedure
- minor victim
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81698 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani
======================================================
Gopal Gupta @ Gopal Kumar S/O Raj Kumar R/o -Narahi P.S - Andhramath,
District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. X D/O Y R/O Village- Dudhaila Ward no. 14, The SHO, Andhramath P.S.
under District- Madhubani in connection with Andhramath P.S. case No.-
98/2025, District Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms.Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in
connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 64, 351(3), 351(2) of the
BNS, Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Protection of
Child Marriage Act.
3. On the basis of the victim’s written application, it is
alleged that the petitioner enticed away the victim at the pretext of
marriage and sexually exploited her. The petitioner later brought her
to his house, where she was again sexually exploited, and thereafter
she was driven out. His family members assaulted her, stating that
she belonged to a different caste. Despite several panchayats, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81698 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
matter was not resolved. On 06.06.2025, the petitioner married
another woman and threatened the victim to kill her family members.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The
victim did not support the prosecution case in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of the BNSS. She, in her statement, has stated that
she had love and affection with the petitioner and she has solemnized
marriage with him.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the
learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail by
submitting that the daughter of the informant has solemnized
marriage with the petitioner. Out of wedlock of the petitioner, the
victim became pregnant and thereafter gave birth to a male child. The
petitioner is not ready to keep the victim with him. The life of the
victim as well as the child has been ruined due to act of the petitioner.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the
privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…