Patna High Court
Suraj Kumar @ KalluversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The petition for regular bail was dismissed, and the petitioner was not released on bail.
Summary
Suraj Kumar, the petitioner, was charged under multiple sections of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping his 10‑year‑old grand‑daughter. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and alleging political motives behind the delayed FIR. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, citing the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and alleged threats made by the petitioner. The trial court’s report indicated that the trial was nearing completion with most witnesses examined. Considering the seriousness of the alleged offences, the victim’s testimony, and the pending trial, the High Court refused to grant bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case of alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and related BNS provisions.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged political motives affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- victim statement
- gravity of offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85663 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2024 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Suraj Kumar @ Kallu S/O Sanjay Mahto Resident of Village- Sahdai Buzurg,
Police Station- Sahdai, District-Vaishali (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Urmila Devi Wife of Late Garibnath Mahto Resident of Village- Sahdai
Buzurg, Police Station- Sahdai, District-Vaishali (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Adv. (PHLSC)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Desari P.S. Case No.
325 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 65(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS read
with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has
alleged that the petitioner has committed rape with her grand-
daughter who is aged about 10 years on the pretext of playing
hide and seek.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85663 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
fabricated case due to ulterior motive and dirty village politics.
From bare perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that the alleged
occurrence took place on 29.08.2024 but the said F.I.R. was
lodged on 20.09.2024 after delay of about 22 days, which
clearly shows malafide intention of the prosecution. Petitioner is
in custody since 11.12.2024 and a statement has been made in
para 3 of the bail application that petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State as
well as Ms. Akanksha Malviya, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of informant, on the instruction of Patna High Court
Legal Services Committee, have vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail of the petitioner.
6. In case diary, statement of the victim recorded
under Section 183 of BNSS has been annexed in which she has
categorically stated about the manner in which the alleged
occurrence took place. It has also come that petitioner
threatened her to kill if she disclosed about this occurrence to
anyone.
7. In compliance of the order dated 02.02.2026, the
report of learned trial court has been received in which it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85663 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
mentioned that trial is likely to be concluded in four months and
most of the witnesses have been examined.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the gravity of
the offence, and the report of the learned Trial Court, this Court
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the
prayer for bail is rejected.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…