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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: petitioner to furnish bail-bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned, Bhagalpur, subject to seven enumerated conditions (close-relative bailor, attendance on trial dates, cancellation for default/violation/similar offences, no coercive contact with informant/family/victim, refraining from interaction with victim/prosecution side, and antecedent verification by the court below without delaying acceptance of bail bonds).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, charged under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 66(E), 67, 67A I.T. Act 2000 in Naugachiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 (trial as POCSO Case No. 66 of 2024), should be enlarged on regular bail.

Court's answer

The Court took into account that the charges levelled in the FIR were not corroborated by the medical examination report, and that a relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl stood accepted by the informant herself in the FIR.

Ratio / Principle

On those considerations the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on regular bail upon furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court at Bhagalpur, in connection with POCSO Case No. 66 of 2024 arising out of Naugachiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024.

Key takeaways

Release was made subject to conditions: one bailor to be a close relative; presence on dates fixed by the trial court; cancellation of bail bond on absence on two consecutive dates or violation; liberty to prosecute to move for cancellation if he commits similar offences; the petitioner shall not approach the informant, her family members or the victim girl to coerce or threaten during the pendency of the trial and shall refrain from interaction with the victim/prosecution side; the court below shall verify his criminal antecedents and take cancellation steps if concealment is found, though acceptance of bail bonds shall not be delayed for such verification.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Hon'ble Sourendra Pandey, J.), 10-07-2025, CR. MISC. No.3654 of 2025: Regular bail granted to Sujeet Kumar in Naugachiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 (trial as POCSO Case No. 66 of 2024) for offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Sections 66(E), 67, 67A I.T. Act, 2000. Bail allowed on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, the Court relying on non-corroboration of the FIR charges by the medical examination report and on the relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl accepted by the informant in the FIR itself. Release made subject to stringent conditions, including that the petitioner shall not approach the informant, her family members or the victim girl to coerce or threaten during trial, shall refrain from interacting with the victim/prosecution side, and that the trial court shall verify his criminal antecedents (with power to cancel bail on concealment, without delaying acceptance of bail bonds). Petitioner reported in custody since 02.09.2024 with no criminal antecedent; counsel had urged false implication following a failed marriage demand and a panchayati.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3654 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- NAUGACHIA District- Bhagalpur

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

Sujeet Kumar Son of Sri Pappu Singh @ Pappu Kumar Singh Resident of Vill- Auliabad, P.S.- Jhandapur, District- Bhagalpur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Bina Devi Wife of Gunanad Pandit Resident of Auliabad, P.S.- Jhandapur, District- Bhagalpur

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

4 10-07-2025

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

A.P.P for the State.

2 . The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 66(E), 67, 67A of the I.T. Act, 2000.

3 . As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner used to stock her daughter, who was studying in class-XII, aged about 17 years and forced her into physical relationship and had even secretly made obscene video and had taken photographs of her daughter. It is further alleged that on 23.03.2024, when the informant had gone to the market,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3654 of 2025(4) dt.10-07-2025 2/4

the petitioner entered inside her house and had established physical relationship and when the alarm was raised, he fled away.

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no such incident has taken place. It is also submitted that the allegation of force physical abuse has not been proved, as the victim girl was medically examined and no such sign was found. He further refers to the medical report, wherein the age of his daughter was found between 17-19 years. Learned counsel has pointed out that the false implication of the petitioner can also be gathered from the fact that the victim girl was actually in love with the petitioner and desperately wanted to marry, however, the petitioner was not ready and, as such, the panchayati was also held and thereafter in order to coerce the petitioner into marrying the daughter of the informant, the present case was lodged. It is further submitted that the allegation of making the video viral is also false, as when the same was demanded from the informant or the victim girl, the same was not made available to the police and it was stated that it has been deleted. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 02.09.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3654 of 2025(4) dt.10-07-2025 3/4

5 . Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

the prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner had committed rape upon the daughter of the informant on several occasions and had even made her obscene video viral.

6 . Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and taking into account the fact that from the medical examination report, charges leveled in the FIR is not being corroborated and also the fact that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl as accepted by the informant in the FIR, let the petitioner above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Bhagalpur in connection with POCSO Case No. 66 of 2024 arising out of Naugachiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) One of the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the learned Trial Court.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled by the Court concerned.

(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution will be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3654 of 2025(4) dt.10-07-2025 4/4

at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (v) The petitioner shall not approach the informant or any of the family members or the victim girl to either coerce or threaten during the pendency of the trial.

(vi) The petitioner should refrain interaction with the victim girl or the prosecution side.

(vii) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands

allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

Sudhanshu/-

U