Dismissed

Ram Milan Patel v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Nov 2025CR. MISC./54842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought bail in anticipatory bail application implicating him in POCSO and BNS offences for assault on a six-year-old minor. Court rejected bail due to incriminating victim statement and directed trial court to conclude trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected. Direction issued for trial conclusion within one year of Section 35(2) POCSO Act.

Ram Milan Patel Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54842 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Ram Milan Patel, S/o Late Ram Kumar @ Late Ram Kumar Mahto, R/o Village- Murliyachak, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State oF Bihar

¶8

Mother of victim “X” W/o Tohan Chaudhari, Resident of Murliyachak, Ward No. 19, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishan Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 19-11-2025

¶12

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted

¶14

by learned counsel appearing for the informant.

¶15

The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection

¶16

with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.182 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 65(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’), Sections 4 and 6 of

¶17

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short

¶18

‘POCSO Act’) later on, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

¶19

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54842 of 2025(3) dt.19-11-2025 2/4

¶21

Act, 1989.

¶22

The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and is in custody since 02.03.2025.

¶23

Allegation against the petitioner is to commit penetrative sexual assault upon minor daughter of informant aged about six years.

¶24

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that considering the nature of allegation that penetrative sexual assault by this petitioner was committed upon victim aged about six years, the medical finding must be incriminating to some extent but absence of any incriminating material categorically creates a doubt qua occurrence, suggesting false implication of this petitioner only due to local disputes and differences. It is submitted that upon medical examination, nothing incriminating was found upon petitoner also, which may suggest his involvement with present crime in question. While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which, charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54842 of 2025(3) dt.19-11-2025 3/4

¶26

the evidence. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶27

Learned Spl.P.P. duly assisted by Mr. Ayush

¶28

Kumar, learned counsel appearing for informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the victim categorically stated while recording her statement under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS) that this petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault/rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim has supported the allegation before the learned trial court as PW-3 and almost till now, out of five charge-sheet witnesses, three witnesses have already examined.

¶29

In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

¶30

taking note of statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, where she categorically alleged against this petitioner as to commit penetrative sexual assault upon her, the prayer of bail of petitioner stands rejected herewith.

¶31

As the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2025,

¶32

the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within provisioned timeline of one year as available under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, failing which the petitioner may

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54842 of 2025(3) dt.19-11-2025 4/4

¶34

renew his prayer for bail, if so advised.

¶35

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶36

Sanjeet/-

¶37

U T

Ram Milan Patel v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan Patel 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

Md Salman @ Md Salman Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushal Kumar Das @ Kaushal Keshore Das Vs The State of Bihar

Abhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Khobari Bin @ Ramashish Bin @ Ramashish Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Jha @ Sanu Jha Vs The State of Bihar