Dismissed¶26

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Oct 2025CR. MISC./22302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; POCSO Act Sections 3/4/10; IPC Sections 312, 376, 498(A); physical relations on false pretext of marriage; 20-month delay in FIR contended; Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim statement supported prosecution; no criminal antecedent; custody since 30.01.2025; charge framed, only I.O. and Doctor left to examine; advanced stage of trial; direction to expedite trial; District Magistrate and SP Munger to ensure witness presence; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No.22302 of 2025, decided 30-10-2025, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, the materials in the case diary, and the advanced stage of trial, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in connection with Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 (Sections 312, 376, 498(A) IPC; Sections 3/4/10 POCSO Act).

¶15

Court's answer

Taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, the materials in the case diary, and the advanced stage of trial, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail is rejected, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously without undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶26

Key takeaways

The District Magistrate, Munger and the Superintendent of Police, Munger are directed to ensure presence of the witnesses on time as and when required by the learned court below, and a copy of the order is to be sent to them for strict compliance.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) refused bail in Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 (Sections 312, 376, 498(A) IPC; Sections 3/4/10 POCSO Act), where the accusation is of establishing physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. Despite counsel's pleas of innocence, alleged love affair, 20-month FIR delay and absence of recovery or criminal antecedents, and although the A.P.P. opposed bail citing seriousness of the offence and the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting the case, the Court held that the gravity and nature of the offence, the case-diary materials and the advanced stage of trial (charge framed; only the Investigating Officer and the Doctor left to be examined, per the court below's report in letter no. 200 dated 10.09.2025) made bail inappropriate at that stage. Bail prayer rejected; court below directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, and the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Munger were directed to ensure timely witness presence, with a copy of the order sent for strict compliance. O.P. No. 2 did not appear despite valid service of notice.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22302 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2024 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Amit Kumar Son of Raja Ram @ Raja Ram Mahton Resident of Village - Hanuman Nagar, Ward No.- 19, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

X Daughter of Y Resident of Village - Bari Jamalpur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District - Munger.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

7 30-10-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State. In spite of valid service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2. Perused the case diary.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 312, 376, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/10 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the petitioner is of establishing physical relation with the victim on the false pretext of marriage.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22302 of 2025(7) dt.30-10-2025 2/3

¶19

against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact the victim girl developed love affair with the petitioner and wanted to marry with him but, on denial, she filed the present false case of rape against the petitioner. He further submits that there is delay of twenty months in lodging the F.I.R. that too without there being any plausible explanation for the same which creates doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 30.01.2025 without any rhymes or reason.

¶20

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in nature. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case.

¶21

Pursuant to the order of this Court, the learned court below has sent report regarding present stage of trial contained in letter no. 200 dated 10.09.2025.

¶22

From perusal of the aforesaid report dated 10.09.2025, it appears that the charge has been framed against

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22302 of 2025(7) dt.30-10-2025 3/3

¶24

the petitioner and only the official witnesses i.e. the Investigating Officer and the Doctor are left to be examined.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, the materials available in the case diary as also keeping in view the advanced stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶26

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶27

The District Magistrate, Munger and the Superintendent of Police, Munger are directed to ensure presence of the witnesses on time as and when required by the learned court below.

¶28

Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Munger and the Superintendent of Police, Munger for strict compliance of this order.

¶29

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶30

rishi/-

¶31

U T

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Mandal @ Mannu Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Jailal Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Manikant Kumar @ Manikant Sonar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikki Soni Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar @ Guchhu @ Manoj Das Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar