Surendra Saw @ Surendre Sah Vs The State of Bihar

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya Narayan Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

6 22-12-2025

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Neora P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 140(3), 96, 123, 76 and 3(5) of the BNS & Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 22.07.2024.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is to offer adulterated coffee/tea and thereafter when she became unconscious she was sexually abused by petitioner and other co-accused Parmendar Chansi.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that allegation of kidnapping is not available against petitioner as per FIR and also as

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40299 of 2025(6) dt.22-12-2025 2/3

¶21

per statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is submitted that infact co-accused Parmendar Chansi brought victim to the cottage of petitioner for taking shelter as she was to board the train for Delhi in the next morning. It is submitted that it was Parmendar Chansi who gave adulterated tea/coffee to the victim and not this petitioner and maximum allegation against this petitioner is to touch informant/victim while she was unconscious. It is also pointed out that victim refused to join medical examination. It is also submitted that despite remaining in custody for about one and half years not even single prosecution witness was examined in this case deferring the timeline as provisioned under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, suggesting the conclusion of trial a remote aspect. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case is completed, for which charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶22

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

¶23

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as allegation of kidnapping is not

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40299 of 2025(6) dt.22-12-2025 3/3

¶25

available against this petitioner and even offering adulterated tea/coffee is also available againt coaccused Parmendar Chansi, coupled with fact as investigation of this case already completed where petitioner remains in custody since 22.07.2024 i.e., one and half year, where not even single prosecution witness was examined in this case till now suggesting conclusion of trial a remote aspect, accordingly petitioner above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Neora P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court of Special Judge POCSO -cum- Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 480(3) of BNSS.

¶26

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶27

S.Tripathi/-

¶28

U T

Surendra Saw @ Surendre Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Saw @ Surendre Sah 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

Brij Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Binod Sah Vs State of Bihar

Ravindra Singh Vs State of Bihar

Baljit Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Nut Vs The State of Bihar

Bikash Kishore Singh Vs The State of Bihar