Allowed¶24

Vicky Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Aug 2025CR. MISC./10137/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vicky Kumar bail granted; Naubatpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2024, District Patna; gang rape of minor; Ss. 341, 323, 506, 376-D read with 34 IPC; Ss. 4 & 6 POCSO Act; S. 27 Arms Act; unnamed in FIR; S. 164 CrPC victim statement named Raja and Golu; parity with co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar (Cr. Misc. No.50863 of 2024, dt. 25.09.2024); charge-sheet filed; custody since 21.11.2024; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; ASJ-VII-cum-Special Judge POCSO Patna; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.; decided 06-08-2025; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10137 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC / Section 480(3) BNSS.

Vicky Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/petitioner, facing charges under Sections 341, 323, 506, 376-D read with 34 IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act and Section 27 Arms Act in Naubatpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2024, should be released on bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Bail considered fit because nothing incriminating appears against the petitioner out of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and in view of judicial parity with co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar who has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench, coupled with completion of investigation and the petitioner's custody since 21.11.2024.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC / Section 480(3) BNSS.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Naubatpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2024 (Sections 341, 323, 506, 376-D read with 34 IPC; Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act; Section 27 Arms Act; alleged gang rape of the informant's minor daughter kidnapped on a false job pretext). Accused not named in the FIR; his name transpired during investigation, on confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar (submission not disputed by APP). Nothing incriminating appeared against the petitioner in the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement, which named Raja and Golu. Judicial parity with co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, already granted bail in Cr. Misc. No.50863 of 2024 (25.09.2024); investigation complete and charge-sheet filed; custody since 21.11.2024. Released on bail, bond of Rs. 10,000 with two like sureties, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna, subject to Section 437(3) CrPC / Section 480(3) BNSS conditions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10137 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2024 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Vicky Kumar, Son of Laxminarayan Singh, Resident of Nagriyama, P.S. - Khijarsarai, District - Gaya, At present C/o Bablu Rai, Kankarbagh, P.SKankarbagh, District - Patna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Soni Devi, Wife of Sanjay Sao, Resident of Tarsan, P.S.-Bhagwanpur Town, District - Muzaffarpur

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 06-08-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

2.The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506, 376-D read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶15

3.The accused/petitioner is not named in the FIR and is in custody since 21.11.2024.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10137 of 2025(5) dt.06-08-2025 2/4

¶17

As per FIR, the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by named and unknown co-accused persons on the false pretext of providing job against monthly salary of Rs.18,00020,000. It is a case of gang rape, where all named co-accused persons along with unknown accused persons committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name transpired during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, in furtherance of which, no incriminating material recovered/surfaced during course of investigation as to connect petitioner prima facie with present occurrence of gang rape. It is pointed out that said co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar was granted bail by one of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No.50863 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024 for the reason that the victim while recording her

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10137 of 2025(5) dt.06-08-2025 3/4

¶20

statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) specifically raised allegation against co-accused namely, Raja and Golu, who said to be committed rape upon her. It is submitted that petitioner was also not named by victim and, therefore, his case is on similar footing qua co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, who was granted bail by learned coordinate Bench of this Court. While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which, charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶21

6.Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail could not disputed the factual submissions as advanced above.

¶22

In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as nothing incriminating appears against petitioner out of statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and further by taking note of judicial parity qua co-

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10137 of 2025(5) dt.06-08-2025 4/4

¶24

accused Rahul Kumar @ Guddu Kumar, who has already granted bail by learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as discussed aforesaid, coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is already completed, where petitioner remains in custody since 21.11.2024, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No.287 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).

¶25

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶26

Sanjeet/-

¶27

U T

Vicky Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mritunjay Singh @ Mritunjay Kumar @ Man Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Turha Vs The State of Bihar

Bhim Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Israil @ Md. Israil Nadaf @ Md. Ishrail Mansuri Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar