Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pankaj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the presence of a direct statement by the minor warranted the continuation of custody.

Summary

Petitioner Pankaj Kumar Basraj Sahani was arrested on 17 September 2025 in connection with a case alleging kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor, the informant's daughter, under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, relying on the minor's recorded statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 183 of the B.N.S., which alleged abduction and forced sexual intercourse. The Court noted the presence of direct and specific allegations involving a minor and deemed the seriousness of the offences 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 kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor under the POCSO Act and related statutes.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • kidnapping
  • sexual assault
  • minor
  • POCSO Act
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91548 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-585 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
                                                        Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Pankaj Kumar Basraj Sahani @ Bansraj Sahani @ Vasraj Sahani Resident of
                 Village - Bardaha, Ward No.- 09, Police Station- Muffasil, District- East
                 Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Aasha Devi W/O Shri Rambabu Sahani Resident of Village - Bardaha, Ward
                 No.- 09, Police Station- Muffasil Motihari, District- East Champaran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State              :      Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-01-2026                      Heard Mr. Karandeep Kumar , learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Mohammed Arif, learned APP for the

                   State.

                                    2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   17.09.2025, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 585 of

                   2025, F.I.R. dated 10.09.2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and

                   Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

                                        3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has

                   kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and sexually

                   assaulted her.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91548 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
                                                           2/2




                         petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely

                         implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

                         allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the

                         petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

                                      5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,

                         vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

                         submits that the petitioner has kidnapped the daughter of the

                         informant and later on the daughter of the informant has been

                         recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of

                         the Cr. P.C./183 of B.N.S., 2023 in which she has categorically

                         stated that the petitioner has abducted her and he has forcefully

                         established physical relation with her.

                                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts that there is direct

                         and specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined

                         to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Muffasil P.S.

                         Case No. 585 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned 6th

                         District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special

                         JUdge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari.

                                          7. Prayer is refused.



Ibrar//-                                                               (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.