Patna High Court
Aman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The application for regular bail is rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Aman Kumar, sought regular bail in a POCSO case alleging kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor, the informant's daughter. The prosecution contended that the petitioner forcibly abducted the minor, established a physical relationship, and that medical evidence showed the victim's hymen was not intact, confirming sexual assault. The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated, citing the victim's statements that their relationship was consensual and that she had voluntarily accompanied him, and highlighted his lack of prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the victim's corroborating statements and medical report. The Court, after considering the evidence, declined to grant bail, allowing the petitioner to reapply after six months, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor.
- Whether the victim's statements and medical evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the annexure presented by the petitioner forms part of the investigation for bail considerations.
- Whether the trial must be expedited under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(3), 180, 183, 3(5), 64
- POCSO Act — s. 35, 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- sexual assault
- minor
- medical evidence
- speedy trial
- Section 35
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86308 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Aman Kumar S/O Amrendra Kumar R/O Village- Dhruvganj, Kharif Bazar,
P.S- Kharik, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Murari Kumar Singh S/O Late Surendra Singh R/O Valipur, P.S- Jamalpur,
Distt.- Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. V.R.P Singh, Adv.
Mr. Uday Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
POCSO Case No. 60 of 2025 arising out of Jamalpur P.S. Case
No. 117 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 137(2), 140(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 wherein after
investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections
137(2), 140(3), 64 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the
POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86308 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. During the
course of investigation, the victim was recovered, and she has
given her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the
BNSS. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she
has stated that this petitioner has given her a mobile and she was
on talking terms with him. She has further stated that the
petitioner took her to Naugachia after enticing her and did use
force. It is further alleged that she was blackmailed for
establishing physical relationship, failing which, the audio will be
made viral. In her statement u/s 180 of the BNSS, she has also
stated that she was forcefully brought to Naugachia and was kept
in a rented room and has also established physical relationship
with her. He also submits that from perusal of the Annexure-P/2, it
will transpire that the victim has given information before the
Superintendent of Police, Munger, that her marriage was fixed
with a man aged about 40 years and that she was forced to
solemnize the marriage, due to which she came out of her house
and has solemnized marriage with this petitioner. Moreover, a
statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner
has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial
custody since 17.06.2025.
5.The application for bail is opposed by the learned
APP for the State and submits that Annexure-P/2 is not part of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86308 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
investigation, and during the investigation, the victim has
categorically supported that the petitioner has forcefully taken her
and has established physical relationship, and from perusal of the
medical examination report, it will transpire that the doctor
conducting the medical examination has found the hymen not
intact and the victim was minor on the date of the occurrence, as it
is clear from the order of the learned trial court. The learned trial
court has recorded that the date of birth of the victim is
01.06.2008.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage;
however, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail application of
the petitioner is hereby rejected.
8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
in view of Section 35 of the POCSO Act so as to conclude the
same within six months.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…