Satish Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 15-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

Despite service of notice, none turned up on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No. 308 of 2025 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 64, 62, 74, 75 and 76 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the minor informant was taken to a hotel room by co-accused Harinarayan Ram where

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51454 of 2025(5) dt.15-12-2025 2/4

¶18

she was molested by another co-accused, Rameshwar Rai. When the informant raised alarm, this petitioner said to be the owner of the hotel took her to upstairs and tried to conceal him from police party which reached the hotel on hearing the cry of the informant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of taking the informant is against coaccused Harinarayan Ram and for molesting the informant is against another co-accused Rameshwar Rai. Only allegation against this petitioner is that he hid the informant in the room upstairs but the informant was recovered from the same room along with co-accused Rameshwar Rai and this fact get verified with seizure list, which also shows recovery from same room. Learned counsel further submits that except for the allegation of concealing the informant, which is not made out from the facts of the case, there is no other material against the petitioner. Moreover, the police, during investigation, did not go through the CCTV footage which shows the informant came to the hotel with other two co-accused persons and she has made a wrong statement. The petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted. The petitioner is having

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51454 of 2025(5) dt.15-12-2025 3/4

¶21

antecedent of one case in which he is on bail.

¶22

Learned APP for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the CCTV footage of the hotel was looked into by the police party. The petitioner was involved in the act with other co-accused persons.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the period of custody of the petitioner along with submission of charge-sheet, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Buxar/court concerned in connection with Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No. 308 of 2025, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of BNSS and the following conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶26

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51454 of 2025(5) dt.15-12-2025 4/4

¶28

or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)