Patna High Court
Bipin Mistri @ Bipin Kumar MistriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner on a Rs 10,000 bond with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Mistri, sought bail in a POCSO case (No.78/2025) alleging that the FIR dated 23‑04‑2025 was fabricated and that no sexual assault occurred. The FIR accused him under Sections 96 and 3(5) of the BNS Act and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, with the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim was returned home before the FIR was lodged and that the co‑accused sister had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed bail, noting two other pending cases against the petitioner, though he was on bail in those matters. The court, finding no statement of sexual assault by the victim and noting the delayed FIR, granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with three conditions relating to cooperation, non‑tampering of evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in the POCSO case despite the FIR and charges.
- Whether the FIR is a false or fabricated complaint.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- false FIR
- victim statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 183
- Section 8
- Section 96
- Section 3(5)
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82489 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Bipin Mistri @ Bipin Kumar Mistri S/o Shibu Mistri R/o vill - Thuthi
Mohanpur, P.S.- Choutham, Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Kumari Under the guardianship of the father one Bablu Sahini, S/o Jay
Kumar Sahni, R/o vill - Thuthi Mohanpur, P.S.- Choutham, Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Rina Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 25-03-2026 Despite valid service of notice upon opposite party
No.2, no one appears on behalf of opposite party No.2.
2. Heard Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Ms.Rina Sinha, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
10.06.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 78/2025
arising out of Choutham P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
23.04.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
96,3(5)of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. As per allegation from the F.I.R it appears that the
petitioner along with co-accused Hadwa and Juned Alam
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82489 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
brought the victim at the house of his sister one Punam Devi
when the victim went to call of nature on 21/4/2025 at 8 P.M
and subsequently the father, grand-mother of victim and some
other villagers came and brought the victim at her house but
nothing bad activities have been done.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. The victim was recovered and her statement
was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS,2023. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence as
alleged in the FIR is 21.04.2025, the victim was returned to her
house on 22.04.2025 and the FIR has been instituted on
23.04.2025 which suggests that afterthought the present FIR has
been instituted, apart from that, the victim has not been
produced before the police and she has been produced before
the police on 24.04.2025 on which date her statement was
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS,2023. Further submits that
co-accused person, namely, Poonam Devi, who happens to be
the sister of the petitioner, has been granted bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed
in Cr. Misc. No.66693 of 2025. The police, after investigation,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82489 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and the
petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, on
the basis of the material available on the record and the case
diary, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries two more cases
other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is
on bail in both the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the
supplementary affidavit.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the victim has not
stated anything about the sexual assault against the petitioner,
the FIR has been instituted after recovery of victim girl and co-
accused person, namely, Poonam Devi, who happens to be the
sister of the petitioner, has been granted bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Hon’ble Court, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Khagaria in
connection with POCSO Case No. 78/2025 arising out of
Choutham P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, with the following
conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82489 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…