Patna High Court
Dilkhush Kumar PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the seriousness of the alleged kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor precludes the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilkhush Kumar Paswan, applied for bail after being in judicial custody since July 17, 2025 in connection with FIR No. 158 of 2025 alleging kidnapping of a minor for marriage and rape. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the informant’s minor daughter on July 5, 2025, and committed sexual offences, with the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and asserted that the allegations were false and fabricated. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s minor status. The court, after considering the facts, declined to grant bail, holding that the nature of the alleged crimes under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the POCSO Act warranted continued custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita in view of the alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor.
- Whether the alleged conduct falls within the ambit of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and claim of false implication are sufficient grounds for bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85754 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura
======================================================
Dilkhush Kumar Paswan Son of Kishan Paswan @Vishundev Paswan
Resident of village Gudiya, P.S. Kumarkhand, District - Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/o Y R/o village Gudiya, W. No. 12, P.S. Kumarkhand, District
Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned A.P.P. for the
State and Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
17.07.2025 in connection with Kumarkhand P.S. Case No. 158 of
2025, FIR dated 07.07.2025 registered for the offence under
Section 96, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged
that on 05.07.2025 at about 5.00 PM, the petitioner along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85754 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
other co-accused persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the
informant with intention for marriage.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely
been implicated in this case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R
and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 17.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State on the basis of materials available on
record as well case diary have vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has fully
supported the case of the prosecution and she has also stated that
the petitioner and other co-accused persons committed rape upon
her and apart from that date of the birth of the victim is
17.08.2010 which suggest that on the alleged date of occurrence,
she was minor.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Madhepura pending in the Court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85754 of 2025(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
Kumarkhand P.S. Case No. 158 of 2025,.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.