Allowed

Pankaj Chaudhari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Nov 2025CR. MISC./38603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for bail in a case of alleged kidnapping and sexual assault/marriage of a 14-year-old girl. Court found the victim's improved Section 164 statement doubtful and noted failure to examine her within POCSO timelines, and granted regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (POCSO), Nawada.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38603 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Pankaj Chaudhari S/o- Naurangi Chaudhari Vill - Nababganj, P.S - Lachhuar, Dist - Jamui

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Anisha Khatoon W/o Md. Azad R/o village-Nababganj, P.S- Lachhuar, District-jamui

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 01-11-2025

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

Out of perusal of record and considering

¶17

submissions it transpires that the notice issued to opposite

¶18

party no. 2 was received by her husband who is none but the father of the victim.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid, the notice as issued

¶20

aforesaid by this Court deemed validly served upon O.P. No.

¶21

2/ informant of this case.

¶22

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025 registered for the offence

¶23

under Sections 87/137(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38603 of 2025(3) dt.01-11-2025 2/4

¶25

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 15.02.2025.

¶26

The allegation against the petitioner is TO kidnap minor daughter aged about 14 years of THE informant along with other co-accused persons for purpose of illicit intercourse/ marriage.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the victim of this case was in love affair with this petitioner and as they belongs from different religious community, therefore their love affair was not approved by the father of the victim and consequent upon, the present false case was lodged against the petitioner. It is pointed out that after recovery the victim refused to join medical examination and stated through her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C./ 183 B.N.S. that she left her home on her own and went to Delhi. She denied completely that any person was involved in her kidnapping. It is submitted by learned counsel that the victim recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C./ 183 B.N.S. that she

¶28

was called by the petitioner near pulia (bridge) from where

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38603 of 2025(3) dt.01-11-2025 3/4

¶30

she was taken to Delhi where they established physical relationship against her will and also solemnized marriage with her despite her objections.

¶31

Arguing further it is submitted that investigation of this case is completed, for which charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. It is submitted that despite of remaining in custody for almost 8 months not even victim could examined in this case which is in complete defiance of legal provisions as available under Section 35(1) of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and therefore, on this ground alone the petitioner deserves bail.

¶32

Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the allegations of sexual assault and of forceful marriage is specifically available against this petitioner.

¶33

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶34

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as taking note of the fact that the improved version of victim qua occurrence makes the occurrence prima facie

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38603 of 2025(3) dt.01-11-2025 4/4

¶36

doubtful on its face in the background of love affairs where even the victim could not examined within time line as prescribed under Section 35(1) of the P.O.C.S.O. Act suggesting that trial is not likely to conclude within preferred time line prescribed under Section 35(2) of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, accordingly petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 29/2025 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 Additional Sessions JudgeVI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Nawada /concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 480(3) of BNSS.

¶37

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶38

tusharika/-

¶39

U T

Pankaj Chaudhari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chaudhari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pravesh Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhikhari Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Arbind Kumar Ram @ Arbind Kumar Ram @ Aarbind Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Gond Vs The State of Bihar