Patna High Court
Baby Ranjan Kumar @ Babi RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Baby Ranjan Kumar, was arrested on 8 August 2025 in connection with a case alleging that he, along with others, lured a minor girl, threatened her, and committed sexual assault, violating Sections 70(1) and 351(2) of the BNS Act, several provisions of the SC/ST Act, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean record, that the FIR was fabricated, and that there was an unjustified delay of over a month between the alleged incident (22 May 2025) and the FIR filing (28 June 2025). The prosecution, supported by the informant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS Act and a medical report, opposed bail, asserting that the victim’s testimony and evidence substantiated the charges. The trial court’s report was considered, and the High Court judge found the seriousness of the offences and the evidentiary material sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged sexual assault of a minor under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner's claim of fabrication affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 183, 351(2), 70(1)
- POCSO Act — s. 6
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- minor
- SC/ST Act
- POCSO Act
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87915 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Baby Ranjan Kumar @ Babi Ranjan S/o Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Prasad
@ Ravindra Ram @ Ravinder Kumar R/o Village - Amaw Tola, Dwarika
Kapuri, P.S - Mau, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX W/o YYY R/o Village - Dwarikapuri, Jaldpur, P.S - Mau, District -
Gaya
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, A.P.P.
For OP No. 2 : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
08.08.2025 in connection with Gaya Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 70(1) and
351(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(i),
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that based
on written information of the informant to the Officer In-charge
alleges therein that on 22.05.2025 at 4.00 P.M. informant's
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87915 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
minor daughter was standing outside her house, opposite to
Ravindra Ram's house and on pretext of giving the minor pen
and others, the mentioned persons lured the victim inside their
house and after threatening to kill the minor, committed wrong
act with her. Informant came to know about the occurrence from
locals after which informant's daughter described the occurrence
to the informant. As only 4 SC/ST houses were in surrounding
area, others have even committed wrong with the female.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of
the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence is 22.05.2025 and
the FIR has been instituted on 28.06.2025 i.e., after a delay of
more than one month without giving any plausible explanation.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand,
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submit that the victim in her statement recorded under
Section 183 of BNSS has fully supported the case of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87915 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
prosecution. Apart from that the medical report of the victim
suggest that she has been sexually assaulted by the accused
persons including the petitioner.
6. Considering the report of the learned Trial Court, I
am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Gaya Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025 pending in the court
of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-
Special Judge of POCSO Act, Gaya.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…