Patna High Court
Chhotu Kumar @ Chotu Ray @ Chhotu RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the allegations were not corroborated by medical evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotu Kumar, sought bail in a Mahila Police Station case (No.62 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, including alleged harassment, attempted outrage of modesty and assault on the informant’s family. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had pursued and attempted to abduct a minor girl and later, with accomplices, assaulted the informant’s household. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, highlighted that the victim refused a medical examination resulting in no injury report, and pointed to a prior uninvestigated complaint. The State opposed bail. The court noted the lack of corroborative medical evidence and the victim’s refusal to undergo examination, finding insufficient basis to deny bail, and therefore ordered bail with stringent conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The bail order required a bond, sureties, and compliance with conditions such as regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under the BNSS and POCSO Act in the absence of medical evidence and corroboration.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 110, 190, 3(5), 482(2), 74, 75, 78
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 175
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- lack of medical evidence
- harassment
- assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83013 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Chhotu Kumar @ Chotu Ray @ Chhotu Ray S/O Bhuvan Ray R/O Vill.-
Thatiya Nasi Tola, P.S.- Kathaiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. xxxx S/O Prabhu Ray R/O Vill.- Mehandi Nagar Bankat, P.S.- Baruraj,
Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.62 of 2025, dated
22.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
109, 74, 75, 78, 110, 190, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
petitioner had allegedly been harassing the victim girl for about
a year. It is alleged that on 27.06.2025, he followed her,
attempted to outrage her modesty, and forcibly took her away;
however, upon her raising an alarm, she was rescued. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83013 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
further alleged that later the same evening, the accused persons
went to the house of the informant, armed with weapons, and
assaulted him and his family members.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Referring to Annexure-P/2, it is submitted that for
the same and similar allegations, the informant had earlier
lodged a complaint before the SHO, Baruraj. No action having
been taken thereon, the informant is said to have filed
Complaint Case No. 24 of 2025, and pursuant to the directions
issued under Section 175 of the BNSS/ 156(3) of the Cr.PC, the
FIR has been registered as the present case. It is further
submitted that from a perusal of the complaint petition, it
transpires that the earlier allegation of causing head injury by
the petitioner has been modified. It is submitted that the case
diary and injury report were called for, and upon perusal thereof,
it appears that the victim refused to undergo medical
examination; hence, no injury report is available on record.
Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83013 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
6. Taking into account the fact that the allegations
do not stand corroborated by the nature of the injuries alleged,
and that no injury report has been prepared on account of the
alleged victim having refused to undergo medical examination,
let the above-named petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within
a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District &
Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO,
Muzaffarpur/Successor Court in connection with Mahila P.S.
Case No.62 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83013 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…