Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeep Kumar Raut @ Sandeep Kumar RautversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Raut, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a Mahila Police Station case (No. 82 of 2025) that alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S.S. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that he helped the victim board a bus, facilitating her alleged elopement with a co‑accused. The petitioner contended that the FIR contains no specific allegation against him, the victim is aged 19‑21 thus outside the purview of the POCSO Act, and he has a clean record. The State and the second opposite party opposed bail, asserting his participation in enticing the victim. The Court examined the lack of specific charges in the FIR and the age of the victim, and held that anticipatory bail could be granted under Section 438(2) CrPC, subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, the petition for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR does not specifically allege the petitioner’s involvement
- Whether the alleged offences fall within the ambit of the POCSO Act given the victim’s age
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable under the listed sections of the B.N.S.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 352(2), 64
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- POCSO Act
- FIR
- bail conditions
- Mahila Police Station case
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92035 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeep Kumar Raut @ Sandeep Kumar Raut S/O
Shamsher Bahadur Bari R/O Vill.- Kesath, P.s.- Nawanagar, Dist.- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ D/O Binod Rajak R/O Vill.- Dev, P.S.- Sikarhatta, Dist.- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 352(2), 64 and 3(5) of the
B.N.S. and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is that he had helped the victim to board the bus at
Bihiya to catch a train at Mugalsarai, who is said to have been
enticed by the accused Ravi Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from bare perusal of the F.I.R, there is no specific allegation
levelled against the petitioner and the only statement which has
been given is that he had helped her board a bus at Bihiya. It has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92035 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
further been submitted that the petitioner has no concern
whatsoever with the elopement of the victim with the co-
accused, namely, Ravi Kumar and from the medical
examination report, it would appear that the victim is 19 to 21
years old and therefore no case under the POCSO Act is made
out. It has next been submitted that the victim has also not stated
anything against the petitioner who has clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as the
learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail and have submitted that the petitioner was
involved with the co-accused in enticing away the victim girl.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission and taking
into account the fact that there is no specific allegation against
the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92035 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92035 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…