Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Manoj KumarversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, sought bail in a case (PS No.375 of 2019) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 376, 420, 406, 506, 34 and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6, relating to alleged sexual assault of a minor and financial fraud. He claimed innocence, highlighted a five‑month delay in filing the FIR, asserted that the parties had amicably compromised, and pointed out his clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. The court noted that the police investigation had not substantiated the allegations and, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to strict conditions including regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail order was pronounced by Justice Ajit Kumar.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the merit of the bail application.
  • Whether the alleged compromise between parties negates the necessity of continued detention.
  • Whether the police investigation’s lack of corroboration justifies bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • sexual assault
  • POCSO
  • IPC
  • delay in FIR
  • compromise
  • Section 482
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83284 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2019 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Kumar S/O Jawahar Sah R/O Ward 13 Gram Parei, P.S.- Dhaka, Dist.-
                 East Champaran
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
           1.     The State Of Bihar Patna
           2.    XXX W/O Y R/O Sheetal Patti, Gandhi Chowk, P.S.- Dhaka, Dist.- East
                 Champaran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mrs. Sakshi Bhatnagar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Rina Sinha, APP
                                                  Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

                                    2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in

                   connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No.375 of 2019 dated

                   04.10.2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections

                   376, 420, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4

                   and 6 of the POCSO Act.

                                    3. As per the FIR, the informant has alleged that

                   her 14-year-old daughter was victimized by the petitioner and

                   another co-accused. It is further alleged that the accused persons

                   had taken a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the informant on the

                   pretext of starting a business but failed to commence the same.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/4




          The prosecution case further states that in May, 2019, while the

          informant was away from her residence, the accused persons

          allegedly threatened and sexually assaulted her daughter and

          recorded the incident. Upon being questioned by the informant,

          the accused persons allegedly threatened to make the video viral

                          4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

          present case. It is further submitted that the alleged occurrence

          is said to have taken place in May, 2019, whereas the FIR was

          lodged on 04.10.2019, and no plausible explanation has been

          furnished for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is the

          case of the petitioner that the police submitted a final form in his

          favour; however, differing from the same, the learned court

          below has taken cognizance against the petitioner. It is further

          submitted that the parties have amicably compromised the

          matter. 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.

                          6. Learned counsel for the informant, who has

          appeared suo motu, is not in a position to controvert the

          submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                            3/4




                          7. Taking into account the fact that, upon

          investigation, the police have not found the allegations to be

          true, 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 6 th District &

          Additional Sessions            Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge,

          POCSO Act, East Champaran at Motihari/Successor Court in

          connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No.375 of 2019, 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

          promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,

          failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83284 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                           4/4




                         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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.