Allowed¶25

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Sept 2025CR. MISC./17890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail; Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No. 17890 of 2025; kidnapping charges S. 363, S. 365, S. 366(A)/34 IPC with POCSO S. 8/12 (G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025); minor girl aged 17 left home with friend Amisha, not the petitioner; implication prima facie based only on CDRs; custody since 19.09.2024 weighed for bail; bail bond Rs.10,000/- with two like sureties; conditions under Section 480(3) B.N.S.S.; defence submissions noted: petitioner on bail in seven other cases and investigation already completed (counsel's argument).

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., before the learned District and Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge POCSO, Hajipur Vaishali/concerned court. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 (Sections 363, 365, 366(A)/34 IPC) and POCSO G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025 (Section 8/12 POCSO Act), should be released on bail.

¶16

Court's answer

The court took prima facie note that the petitioner's implication in the case rested merely on CDRs, whereas the FIR categorically suggests the informant's daughter left her house with her friend and not with the petitioner; coupled with the petitioner remaining in custody since 19.09.2024, this factual position supported grant of bail.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 and POCSO G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge POCSO, Hajipur Vaishali/concerned court, subject to the conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED — Patna High Court (Cr. Miscellaneous No. 17890 of 2025, decision dated 16-09-2025, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha) allowed bail for Manish Kumar, in custody since 19.09.2024 in Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 (Sections 363, 365 and 366(A)/34 IPC) and POCSO G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025 (Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act). The FIR showed the 17-year-old daughter of the informant left home with her friend Amisha and not with the petitioner; the court noted prima facie that implication of the petitioner was made merely on the basis of CDRs. Released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with two like sureties, subject to Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. conditions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17890 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2024 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali

¶3

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

¶4

Manish Kumar Son of Nagina Sahni Resident of Mohalla - Nakhash Chauk, P.S.- Town Hajipur, District - Vaishali.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Renu Devi Wife of Late Gajendra Rai Resident of Mohalla - Lakshmi Nagar, P.S.- Industrial Area, District - Vaishali.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 16-09-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 363, 365 and 366(A)/34 of the IPC and POCSO G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025 under Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 19.09.2024.

¶18

The allegation as per FIR is that daughter of informant aged about 17 years on 20.03.2024 at about 6:30 PM, left home for market with her friend namely Amisha with mobile no. 9128429015. Informant raised suspicion that her daughter

¶19

was kidnapped for immoral trafficking.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17890 of 2025(6) dt.16-09-2025 2/3

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per FIR daughter of the informant did not left her house with petitioner, rather with her friend Amisha. It is pointed out that the daughter of informant was working with orchestra party and she frequently visited outside home in her professional capacity. It is pointed out that petitioner was in touch with daughter of informant in his professional capacity and, therefore, making call to her was a normal act, therefore, on the basis of CDRs petitioner cannot be connected with present crime in question. While concluding the argument it is submitted that, petitioner found involved in seven more cases, where he is on bail in all cases and moreover, investigation of this case has already completed, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶22

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the prayer for bail.

¶23

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as prima-facie merely on the basis of CDRs implication of petitioner was made with the present case, where FIR categorically suggests that the daughter of informant left her house with her friend and not with this petitioner, coupled with the fact as petitioner remains in custody since 19.09.2024,

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17890 of 2025(6) dt.16-09-2025 3/3

¶25

accordingly above named petitioner, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024, POCSO G.R. Case No. 16 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge POCSO, Hajipur Vaishali/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶26

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶27

S.Tripathi/-

¶28

U T

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Rakesh Kumar @ Suraj Kumar @ Kargil Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Abhishek Satyarahi @ Chandan Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Singh Vs The Director Economic offence Unit, Bihar, Patna

Ajay Singh Vs The Union of India, through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Director

Rajesh Mahato @ Rajesh Mahto Vs The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Narcotics Drugs Control Bureau, New Delhi

Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Sao Vs The State of Bihar