Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to bail as there are no fresh grounds to alter the earlier denial, and the trial must be expedited.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, was arrested in September 2024 in connection with a POCSO case involving alleged offences under Sections 366(A) and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, arguing that he had been in judicial custody for an extended period without substantive progress in the trial. The trial court had earlier denied regular bail, directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings. The High Court noted that, despite the framing of charges, the prosecution had not produced any witnesses and there were no fresh grounds to revisit the bail application. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail petition again, reiterating the directive to conclude the trial within five months and allowing a fresh bail application thereafter. The decision underscores the Court’s emphasis on expediting serious sexual offence trials while maintaining the status quo on bail where no new material emerges.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving offences under Sections 366(A), 376(1) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act despite prolonged pre‑trial detention.
- Whether any fresh material or change in circumstances justifies revisiting the earlier bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 366(A), 376(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- pre‑trial detention
- trial expeditiousness
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86292 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Rahul Kumar, S/O Kanhaiya Ram R/O Village- Sultanpur, P.S- Ramgarh,
Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Ram S/O Bihari Ram R/O Village- Sultanpur, P.O- Upari, P.S-
Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Upendra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO
Case No. 92 of 2025, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 47
of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 366(A) of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 74839 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence with a direction to the learned Court below to expedite
the trial.
4. In compliance of the order dated 12.12.2025, a report
dated 22.12.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86292 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
that charge has been framed u/s 376(1) and 366 of I.P.C. and u/s
6 of the POCSO against the petitioner. It is further reported that
there is nine witness in this case and till date no witness has
been produced by the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 01.09.2024
without any rhymes or reason.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail.
7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial
is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated
above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…