Patna High Court
Bambam SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition was dismissed as there were no fresh grounds to alter the earlier decision.
Summary
Bambam Singh was charged under Sections 376, 120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences against a minor. The High Court had earlier denied regular bail, citing the gravity of the accusations and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, in judicial custody since August 2024, sought bail again, arguing that he had been detained without sufficient cause. The State opposed the bail, and the court found no fresh ground to revisit the earlier decision. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, and the court directed the lower court to expedite the trial and complete it within five months, allowing a future bail application if the deadline is missed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether any fresh material or change in circumstances justifies revisiting the earlier bail denial
- Whether the stage of trial and examination of witnesses affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 376, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 17, 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87196 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- BUDHUCHAK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Bambam Singh Son of Shatrughan Singh @ Satrudhan Singh Resident of
Mohalla- Goghatta, P.S.- Budhuchak, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Batia Devi W/o Ram Swaroop Singh R/o Mohalla- Ganghatta, P.S.-
Budhuchak, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subodh Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO
Case No.99 of 2024, arises out of Budhuchak P.S Case No. 21
of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 120(B),
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 and 17 of the
POCSO Act.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 81572 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the
offence, there being direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner as also taking into consideration the statement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87196 of 2025(7) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
minor victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. with
a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude
the same expeditiously.
4. In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026, a report
dated 22.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has
been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears
that charge has been framed on 18.07.2025. The victim has been
examined on 21.01.2026. It is further reported that out of seven
Charge-sheeted witnesses, one witness has been examined.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.08.2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87196 of 2025(7) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Manish/ Sukriti
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.