Dismissed¶8

Upendra Baitha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Dec 2025CR. MISC./45259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected — POCSO/BNS case; Patna HC Crl. Misc. No. 45259 of 2025 (02-12-2025), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha; Mohania PS Case 48/2025, POCSO Case 43/25, District Kaimur (Bhabua); offences under Sections 303(2), 96, 64(1) BNS and Section 4 POCSO Act; victim's Section 183 BNSS statement alleges penetrative sexual assault; accused in custody since 26.03.2025; charge-sheet filed, three of four witnesses examined; trial to conclude within one year of cognizance per Section 35(2) POCSO Act; S.P. Kaimur to ensure IO examined within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; bail rejected for the present. Directions issued: trial court to conclude trial preferably within one year from cognizance (Section 35(2) POCSO Act); S.P., Kaimur at Bhabhua to ensure examination of the investigating officer within 30 days of receiving the order.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, named in the FIR and in custody since 26.03.2025 in Mohania P.S. Case No. 48/2025 (POCSO Case No. 43/25), should be granted bail.

¶2

Court's answer

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected for the present.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Rejection rests on the nature of accusation specifically available against the petitioner in terms of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, coupled with satisfactory progress of trial which is almost at its fag end.

¶8

Key takeaways

Learned trial court directed to conclude the trial preferably within one year from the date of cognizance, as provisioned under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.ratio¶9
Copy of the order to be sent to S.P., Kaimur at Bhabhua to ensure examination of the investigating officer of the case positively within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45259 of 2025, decided 02-12-2025: regular-bail prayer of Upendra Baitha, accused in Mohania P.S. Case No. 48/2025 (POCSO Case No. 43/25) under Sections 303(2), 96 and 64(1) of BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly kidnapping the informant's minor daughter aged about 14 years and committing penetrative sexual assault upon her, stands rejected. The accused, in custody since 26.03.2025, had investigation completed with charge-sheet filed, and three of four charge-sheeted witnesses already examined. Weighing the victim's categorical statement under Section 183 of BNSS specifically implicating the petitioner against the near-complete trial, the court declined bail, directed the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within one year from cognizance as provisioned under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, and ordered transmission of the order to the S.P., Kaimur at Bhabhua to ensure examination of the pending Investigating Officer witness within 30 days.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45259 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

====================================================== Upendra Baitha son of Ramashankar Baitha @ Fakar Baitha, R/o VillagePakdi Ps- Kochas District -ROHTAS. ... ... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar.

¶6

Munna Dhobi @ Munna Baitha son of Rambilas Baitha, R/o VillageGodsra, Ps- Nuaon, Dist- Kaimur (Bhabhua), At P/A- Bharkhar, psMohania, Dist- Kaimur, Bhabua.

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 02-12-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶14

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mohania

¶16

P.S. Case No. 48/2025/POCSO Case No. 43/25 registered for the offence under Sections 303(2), 96, 64(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶17

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 26.03.2025.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the minor daughter of the informant aged about 14 years and also alleged to commit penetrative sexual assault upon her.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the distance between the house of petitioner with

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45259 of 2025(4) dt.02-12-2025 2/3

¶21

informant is of about 25 Km and, therefore, the allegation as alleged is not appearing possible until and unless the victim accompanied petitioner out of her own sweet will. While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶22

Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.

¶23

Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, learned counsel appearing

¶24

for the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the victim categorically alleged against this petitioner as to commit penetrative sexual assault upon her while recording her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, who is a married man aged about 35 years old. It is further submitted that out of four charge-sheeted witnesses, three have already examined and only remaining witness is the Investigating Officer of this case, who is proposed to examine very shortly by the learned trial court.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of nature of accusation, as available specifically against this petitioner in terms of statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, coupled with the fact that progress of trial is also appears satisfactory, which is almost at its fag end,

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45259 of 2025(4) dt.02-12-2025 3/3

¶27

accordingly prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected herewith for the present.

¶28

The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial

¶29

preferably within one year, from the date of cognizance as provisioned under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.

¶30

Let a copy of this order be sent to S.P., Kaimur at Bhabhua to ensure the examination of investigating officer of this case, positively within 30 days from the date of receiving of copy of this order.

¶31

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶32

veena/-

¶33

U T

Upendra Baitha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Baitha 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

Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shailendra Kumar @ Chiku @ Chiku Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Chandravanshi @ Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Chandra Bosh @ Gard Saab Vs The State of Bihar

Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Singh @ Pinku Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar