Patna High Court
Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Gautam Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named in FIR No.34 of 2025 alleging offences under Section 69 of the B.N.S. 2023, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR alleged that co‑accused Amar Kumar lured the victim to a litchi orchard where a physical relationship occurred, and the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. ambiguously mentioned the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that no allegation of a physical relationship against him existed and that he was merely standing away from the scene. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s presence at the alleged location. Considering the nature of the allegations and the victim’s inconsistent statement, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties within four weeks, subject to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations under the POCSO Act, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the B.N.S. 2023.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 182, 183, 482(2), 69
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- POCSO
- SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
- section 69 B.N.S. 2023
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84819 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Kumar Ray S/o- Ram Kumar Ray @ Ram Kumar
Rai R/v- Jitwarpur Kumhra Ps- Sarairanjan Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX D/o- Pramod Ram R/v- Jitwarpur Kumhra Ps- Sarairanjan Dist-
Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Mahendra Pratap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-04-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025
registered under Section 69 of the B.N.S. 2023 read with
Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of
Atrocities Act.
3. As per the F.I.R. the victim has alleged that on
03.05.2025 the co-accused / Amar Kumar called her on her
mobile phone and asked her to meet him nearby a ‘lichi’
orchard. At about 9:00 P.M. the victim arrived at the ‘lichi’
orchard where she saw the petitioner and the co-accused / Amar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84819 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
Kumar. It has further been alleged that Amar Kumar established
physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of
marriage. The victim has stated in F.I.R. that she was having
love relationship with Amar Kumar and on the pretext of
marriage he used to establish physical relationship with the
informant and when the victim girl called Amar Kumar and
asked her to perform marriage, he refused to identify her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
The victim has clearly stated that Amar Kumar had love
relationship with the victim and he had promised the victim to
solemnize marriage. On the pretext of marriage, it was Amar
Kumar, who established physical relationship with the victim
girl. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner also
established any physical relationship with the informant. It has
been stated in the F.I.R. that petitioner was standing away from
the place where both co-accused / Amar Kumar and the victim
girl was having physical relationship. In the statement of the
victim girl recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. she has stated
that Amar Kumar had established physical relation as well as
this petitioner but subsequently in the same breath she has said
that petitioner did not establish any relation with her.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84819 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
5. Despite service of notice, no one appeared for the
opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
he was present around the place of occurrence.
7. Regard being had to the submission made by the
parties, taking into consideration the nature of allegation against
the petitioner as well as statement of the victim girl recorded
under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of four 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
learned Additional Sessions -VI cum Special Court (POCSO),
Samastipur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the B.N.S.S. 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…