Patna High Court
Rohit Kumar Mehta @ Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations serious and the evidence sufficient to justify continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar Mehta, was arrested on 11 August 2025 in connection with a Mahila Police Station case involving alleged sexual exploitation of a minor, including the creation of an obscene video and threats to disseminate it. He sought regular bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the victim’s recorded statements under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, which indicated repeated penetrative sexual assault. The court examined the seriousness of the charges under the BNSS, POCSO Act, and IT Act, and found the evidence sufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving sexual exploitation and threats to publish obscene material
- Whether the victim’s statements under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS constitute sufficient ground to deny bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 64(1), 75, 78
- Information Technology Act — s. 67, 67(A)
- POCSO Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual exploitation
- obscene video
- threat to publish
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91040 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================
Rohit Kumar Mehta @ Rohit Kumar S/o- Ajay Kumar Mehta @ Ajay Mahto
R/v- Telhara, Ps- Telhara Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX C/o- YY R/v- Tehhara Ps- Tehhara Dist- Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Baljit Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renuka Ratanakar (App125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rana Baljit Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Renuka Ratanakar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
11.08.2025 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 133 of
2025, (POCSO Case No. 144/2025) F.I.R. dated 11.08.2025 for
the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 75, 78 of the
B.N.S. and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act and sections 67, 67
(A) of the I.T. Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he had
sexually exploited the victim girl by making her obscene video
and also threatened to made it viral.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91040 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/2
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged is false
and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence
as in the F.I.R.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the
statement of victim was recorded under section 180 and 183
BNSS which suggests that the victim has supported the case of
prosecution and she has also stated that the petitioner has
repetitively penetrative sexual assault with her
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and serious nature of allegation made against the
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on
bail.
7. Hence, the prayer for regular bail stands rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…