Patna High Court
Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition was dismissed as no fresh ground existed and the trial was at an advanced stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 420, 376, 506 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for offences including cheating, rape and sexual assault of a minor. An earlier bail application was rejected on the basis of the gravity of the offences and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The trial has progressed with charge framing on 06‑06‑2025 and examination of three out of five witnesses; the court below reported that the trial could be completed within four months. The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since 31‑05‑2024, again sought bail, arguing that he was being detained without reason. The State opposed the bail, contending that there were no fresh grounds and the trial was at an advanced stage. The High Court found no new circumstances warranting bail and again denied the petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within four months, with a provision to renew the bail prayer if the deadline is missed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence for offences under the POCSO Act and serious IPC offences at an advanced stage of trial?
- Whether any fresh ground exists to merit granting bail to the petitioner after the earlier denial?
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 420, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- sexual offences
- criminal procedure
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8304 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2024 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar S/O Late Raghunath Prasad Mehta R/O Village - Bahari
Dhawalpura, Imli Tola P.S- Bypass, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX S/O Dev Narayan Mahto R/O Village - Dhawalpura, P.S- Bypass,
Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Khushi Awadh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P.
========================================t==============
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Spl.
(POCSO) Case No.- 145 of 2024 arising out of By Pass P.S.
Case No. 221 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections
420, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4
of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 07.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 1215 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence as also taking into account the statement of the victim
girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C with a direction to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8304 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
court below to expedite the trial and the conclude the same
expeditiously.
4. In compliance of the order dated 03.02.2026, a report
dated 09.03.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that charge was framed on against the petitioner on 06.06.2025.
It is further reported that out of five witnesses named in the
charge sheet, three witnesses have been examined including the
father of the victim, mother of the victim and one independent
witness. The trial would be completed within a period of four
months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 31.05.2024
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail.
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8304 of 2026(5) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
preferably within a period of four months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of four months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/Sukriti
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.