Dismissed¶22

Mithu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jul 2025CR. MISC./13875/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.13875 of 2025, decided 09-07-2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra. Bail rejected in Sonbarsa PS Case No. 358 of 2024 (Sitamarhi) under Sections 137(2) & 96 BNS 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act; allegations of forcible application of vermillion on a 15-year-old girl and attempted kidnapping for marriage; victim's s.183 BNS statement relied on by State; petitioner in custody since 14-11-2024; trial to be expedited; liberty to renew bail if trial not completed within six months.

What did the court decide?

Conditional liberty to renew the prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months; direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial. ¶22

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13875 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Mithu Kumar S/o Sri Rajkishor Thakur Resident of Village- Ganghati, PSMotipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Nirmala Devi W/o Sri Lalbabu Thakur R/o vill - Dostiya, P.s.- Bhutahi, Distt.- Sitamarhi

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 09-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶13

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 137(2) & 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.11.2024, the informant’s 15-year-old daughter was going to the bank when petitioner forcibly applied vermillion on her and attempted to kidnap her for marriage. On hearing her cries, villagers intervened and caught the accused. The informant reached the spot and, with the help of villagers, handed

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13875 of 2025(6) dt.09-07-2025 2/3

¶16

petitioner over to the police.

¶17

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 14-11-2024. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶18

5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a misunderstanding, as the allegations in the FIR are general and baseless. Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the informant’s elder daughter and was in a consensual relationship with the victim. The case was lodged by the informant to pressure the petitioner after he declined to marry the victim. No offence of kidnapping or sexual assault is made out; hence, the sections of the BNS and POCSO Act are not applicable.

¶19

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Referring to statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023, it is submitted that victim herself has stated that petitioner put vermillion without her consent and he used to threaten her. Other witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

¶20

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13875 of 2025(6) dt.09-07-2025 3/3

¶22

of the case, there being direct allegation against the petitioner of putting vermillion upon the victim in the public place, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected .

¶23

8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶24

9. However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months.

¶25

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶26

Raj Kishore/- U T

Mithu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithu 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Paswan @ Amarjit Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kr. Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Yadav @ Budhan Yadav @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar