Patna High Court
Shubham Singh @ Ayush GautamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and ordered his release on bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Shubham Singh and others, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a Mahila Police Station case (No.42 of 2025) under sections 65,3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act for allegedly taking a minor girl to their residence and retaining her for education and household work. The informant claimed the girl was kept against her will, while the petitioners argued the girl was voluntarily sent for schooling and that the FIR, filed in 2025, pertained to an incident in 2021 and was preceded by a dismissed complaint. The court examined the delay, the lack of medical evidence of sexual assault, the petitioners’ attendance certificate showing they were studying elsewhere, and the need for caution in child witness testimony. Relying on constitutional provisions and the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, the court found the allegations vague and the petitioners had made a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the district court to grant anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to verification of any other pending cases.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged child sexual abuse and child labour under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. 2023.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the prior dismissal of a complaint affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the medical report and the petitioner's alibi negate the necessity of arrest.
- Whether the testimony of a child witness can be relied upon without corroboration.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 3(5), 65
- B.N.S.S. (Bihar Narcotic Substances?) — s. 180, 183
- Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 — s. 14A, 14D, 3
- Constitution of India — s. Article 39(e), Article 39(f)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- child witness credibility
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- child labour law
- Section 482 CrPC
- competence of child testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9903 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shubham Singh @ Ayush Gautam Son of Late Guddu Singh @ Rajeev
Ranjan Singh Resident of Village-Chintamanpur, PS-Pipra, District-
EastChamparan,Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kulhari Devi Wife of Heera Mukhiya Resident of Village- Semarkaul Ward
no. 14, Ps- Bagha, Dist- West Champaran , Bettiah
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Bakshi SRP Sinha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 07-05-2026 Heard Ms. Isha Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, as well as, Mr.
S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Arvind
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S.case no. 42 of 2025 registered under sections
65,3(5) of the B.N.S. of 2023 and sections 4 and 8 of POCSO
Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
allegedly took the informant’s minor daughter to his house on
the pretext of educating and taking care of her, where she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
2/9
remained residing since 05.07.2021. It is further alleged that
when the informant went to bring her back, the petitioner and
his family members refused and threatened the informant and
her husband, thereeafter the victim was produced before the
Mahila Police Station, Bagaha.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The petitioner has antecedent of two cases, both
were instituted at the behest of the informant side. Referring to
the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned counsel submits that
the informant herself alleges that on 04.07.2021 she, along with
her minor daughter aged about 10 years, had gone to attend a
feast at the house of an ex-Mukhiya, where the accused persons
requested that the victim be sent with them for admission in a
school and for performing minor household work, to which the
informant voluntarily consented, and thereafter on 05.07.2021
the victim accompanied the accused persons. The alleged
occurrence is of the year 2021, whereas the present F.I.R. has
been instituted only on 28.04.2025, despite the allegation that
the informant was not being allowed to meet the victim.
Learned counsel submitted that prior to institution of the present
F.I.R., the informant had already instituted Complaint Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
3/9
24 of 2025 on the same set of allegations, which was dismissed
on 10.12.2025 for non-prosecution after the complainant failed
to appear on several dates. Copies of the complaint petition and
dismissal order have been annexed as Annexure-P/3 and
Annexure-P/4 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the medical examination report of the
victim does not prima facie support the allegation of rape or
sexual assault, which, according to him is the result of
influence, tutoring or false implication. He further submitted
that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, the petitioner
was pursuing the B.B.A. LL.B. course at Dehradun during the
academic session 2018–2023 and, in support thereof, an
attendance certificate has been brought on record by way of
Annexure-P/5. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bakshi
S.R.P. Sinha appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose that the petitioner had
taken the minor victim with the assurance of providing
education and thereafter subjected her to exploitation for a
considerable period. The victim, in her statement recorded under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
4/9
Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., has fully supported the prosecution
case and specifically corroborated the allegations levelled in the
F.I.R. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the delay in
institution of the F.I.R. has adequately been explained. The
crime continued for nearly four years. The petitioners had not
allowed the informant to get her daughter back and when all the
authorities failed to redress her grievance, the informant was left
with no alternative than to lodge the FIR. The petitioner has
criminal antecedent of two cases, details whereof have been
disclosed in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition, and considering
the serious nature of allegations involving a minor girl, the
petitioner do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, upon perusal of the materials
available on record, it appears that the informant herself alleges
that she had voluntarily permitted her daughter to accompany
the accused persons for admission in school and for performing
household work. It further appears that although the alleged
occurrence is of the year 2021, the present F.I.R. has been
instituted on 28.04.2025. The materials available on record
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
5/9
indicate that prior to institution of the present F.I.R., Complaint
Case No. 24 of 2025, on the same set of allegations, was
instituted by the informant, which appears to have been
dismissed for non-prosecution.
8. The mandate of Article 39 (e) of the Constitution of
India provides that the tender age of children is not abused and
citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocation
unsuited to their age, and if children are to be given
opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and
childhood is to be protected against exploitation as visualised by
Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India.
9. Considering the above mandate of the Constitution,
the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1986') was enacted
with an object to prohibit the employment of children below the
age of 14 years and 15 years in certain specified employment.
10. Section 3 of the Act 1986 prohibits employment of
children in any occupation and process.
11. Section 14 A of the Act, 1986 provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, any offence committed by an employer and
punishable under Section 3 or Section 3-A shall be cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
6/9
offence.
12. Section 14-D of the Act, 1986 relates to
compounding of the offence for the first time by the accused
being parent or a guardian, in such manner and on payment of
such amount to the appropriate Government, as may be
prescribed.
13. In the present FIR, no case has been lodged
against the petitioner under the provision of Sections 3 or 14 of
the Act, 1986.
14. The Apex Court has consistently held that while
the evidence of a child witness is not to be discarded merely on
account of age, the Court must remain conscious to the
possibility of such witness being swayed, influenced or tutored,
particularly considering the susceptibility and innocence
attached to tender age. The Court, therefore, is required to
satisfy itself with regard to the competence, credibility and
voluntariness of such testimony before placing reliance
thereupon. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs.
Chatra, reported in (2025) 8 SCC 613 which is reproduced
hereinafter:
“23. The principles that can be adduced from an
overview of the aforesaid decisions, are:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
7/9
23.1. No hard and fast rule can be laid down qua testing
the competency of a child witness to testify at trial.
23.2. Whether or not a given child witness will testify is
a matter of the trial Judge being satisfied as to the
ability and competence of the said witness. To
determine the same the Judge is to look to the manner
of the witness, intelligence, or lack thereof, as may be
apparent; an understanding of the distinction between
truth and falsehood, etc.
23.3. The non-administration of oath to a child witness
will not render their testimony doubtful or unusable.
23.4. The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of
the child witness being swayed, influenced and tutored,
for in their innocence, such matters are of ease for
those who may wish to influence the outcome of the
trial, in one direction or another.
23.5. Seeking corroboration, therefore, of the testimony
of a child witness, is well-placed practical wisdom.
23.6. There is no bar to cross-examination of a child
witness. If the said witness has withstood the cross-
examination, the prosecution would be entirely within
their rights to seek conviction even solely relying
thereon.” (emphasis supplied)
15. The victim, in her statements recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., has supported the
allegations alleged in the F.I.R. and has specifically alleged
commission of wrong by the petitioner but the same is required
to be ascertained in view of the settled principle of law that the
testimony of a child witness is required to be appreciated with
due caution and circumspection. The medical examination
report of the victim does not prima facie support the allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
8/9
of sexual assault, which has come in para-53 of the case diary.
The petitioner has also brought on record attendance certificate
showing that he was pursuing BBA LL.B. course at Dehradun
during the relevant period.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the materials brought on record, I find that a vague
allegation has been alleged against the petitioner and his entire
family members. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has,
prima facie, made out a case to be released on bail.
17. The learned District Court is directed to release
the petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest
or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Mahila P.S. Case no. 42 of 2025, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 482 of the
BNSS//438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
18. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner, as what has been stated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9903 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
9/9
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
19. Before parting with the order, by way of caution, I
must observe that even after more than 75 years of indpendence,
the parent/guardian seek to put their minor/adolescent children
in employment. I find it gainful to reproduce the observation
made by the Apex Court in paragraphs no. 34 and 34 of the
M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in 1996
(6) SCC 756, which inter alia are as under:
"34. We part with the fond hope that the
closing years of the twentieth century would see us
keeping the promise made to our children by our
constitution about a half-century ago. Let the child
of twenty-first century find himself into that "heaven
of freedom" of which our poet laureate
Rabindranath Tagore has spoken in Gitanjali.
35. Let a copy of this judgment is to be
sent to Chief Secretaries of all the State
Governments and union Territories; so also to the
Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India
for their information and doing the needful. "
20. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date 13.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.