Patna High Court

Sunil Prasad @ Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Sunil Prasad, accused under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 376(DA) and 34 as well as POCSO Act sections 4 and 6, applied for regular bail after being in custody for more than two years. The petitioner argued that the victim’s deposition, filed as annexure, indicated that no offence was committed by him and that she had voluntarily entered into a relationship with co‑accused Subhash Yadav. The State, represented by an assistant public prosecutor, did not oppose the bail application. The court considered the long period of detention, the victim’s statement, and the nature of the charges, and found no compelling reason to keep the petitioner detained. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate ground for granting regular bail to an accused facing multiple serious offences under the IPC and POCSO Act after prolonged pre‑trial detention?
Does the victim’s deposition, indicating no wrongdoing by the accused, affect the bail determination?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
IPC
POCSO
sexual offences
kidnapping
theft
long custody
victim deposition

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89052 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2023 Thana- MURAR District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Prasad @ Sunil Kumar Late Mahendra Prasad Village - Pareo, P.S. -
                 Bihta, District - Patna, Bihar.
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Manu Tripurari, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-01-2026                   Heard Mr. Manu Tripurari, learned counsel for the

                    petitioner and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, 1, learned APP for the State.

                                 2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                    Murar P.S. Case No. 89/ 2023 dated 15.10.2023 registered for the

                    offence(s) punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(DA) and

                    34 of the IPC and sections 4/6 of POCSO Act.

                                 3. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner’s

                    counsel are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get

                    the relief of bail and the fresh circumstances entitling the

                    petitioner to bail are the evidence of the victim recorded by her

                    before the trial court and her deposition’s copy has been filed with

                    this petition as Annexure-2 and secondly the long custody period

                    which has been more than two years. It is further submitted that

                    the victim deposed before the trial court that she met with the

                    petitioner for the first time in course of travelling in a train and
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89052 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                                      2/2




                    nothing wrong was committed by the petitioner with her and she

                    further deposed in her cross-examination that on account of

                    assault being committed with her by her parents she left her house

                    and started residing in the house of Suraj Yadav and later on

                    entered into matrimonial relation with co-accused, Subhash Yadav

                    and also       accepted her pregnancy with the said matrimonial

                    relation and in this regard, her deposition’s copy may be perused.

                                  4. In view of the deposition of the victim, learned APP

                    appearing for the State does not oppose the bail prayer of the

                    petitioner.

                                  5. In the facts and circumstances of this case          and

                    considering       the    aforesaid      submissions   advanced   by   the

                    petitioner’s counsel, averments made in this petition, the

                    petitioner’s custody period coupled with the evidence of the

                    victim recorded by her before the trial court, this court is inclined

                    to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner

                    named-above be released on bail in connection with Murar P.S.

                    Case No. 89/ 2023 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-

                    (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                    each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.


                                                     (Shailendra Singh, J)
BKS/-
U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…