Patna High Court
Subhash Mandal @ KailuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court declined to grant bail, holding that the victim’s statement under Section 183 and the gravity of the alleged offences warranted continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Mandal, was charged with rape of a ten‑year‑old girl under Sections 64(1) and 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, claiming false implication due to family enmity and relying on a medical report that showed no injuries or spermatozoa. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the victim’s corroborative statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The court examined the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s statement, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, with the court allowing a fresh application after six months if the case does not progress substantially.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a rape case involving a minor under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. provisions.
- Whether the absence of medical evidence of injury or spermatozoa negates the prima facie case against the accused.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- medical evidence
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83070 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura
======================================================
Subhash Mandal @ Kailu S/o Late Bishnudev Mandal R/o Village - Auradih,
Ward no. 09, P.S - Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mira Devi W/o Late Ramswarup Mandal R/o Village - Auradih, Ward no.
09, P.S - Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf
of the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 65(2) of the B.N.S. and
Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged
to have committed rape upon the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner, who is an old man of about 60 years of age, has
falsely been implicated in the present case as there was prior enmity
between the families of the informant and the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the medical examination report of the victim which
was conducted on the same day i.e. on 16.08.2025 does not indicate
any injury on her body and no spermatozoa was also found in the
vaginal swab, which would be evident from the medical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83070 of 2025(6) dt.11-03-2026
2/2
examination report. On the strength of such medical report, it has
been submitted that no such occurrence ever took place and the
petitioner has been falsely implicated. The petitioner is in custody
since 18.08.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail
on the ground that the victim is the minor girl of about 10 years of
age and in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., she has completely supported the case of the prosecution.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and especially considering the statement of the victim
under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., this Court is not inclined to grant
the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the
prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with
Alamnagar P.S. Case No.261 of 2025.
7. However, if substantial progress is not made in the
case in a period of another six months, the petitioner would be at
liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is however clarified that the
Court concerned would proceed expeditiously without giving any
unnecessary adjournments.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…