Dismissed¶¶32

Vikash Bind v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Nov 2025CR. MISC./58409/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; POCSO Act S.6; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita S.70(1); gang-rape / aggravated penetrative sexual assault; minor victim aged 17 years 5 months; marriage function; Machiyawan, Bhabhua, Kaimur; FIR Bhabua P.S. Case No. 417 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025; victim's statements under BNSS Sections 180 and 183; medical report - no external injury; school certificate minority vs physical appearance major; trial timeline Section 35(2) POCSO Act; renewal of bail if trial delayed; custody since 19.05.2025; chargesheet submitted; CR. MISC. No.58409 of 2025; Patna High Court; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; petitioners remain in custody. Trial Court directed to conclude trial within the Section 35(2) POCSO Act timeline, failing which petitioners may renew their bail prayer. ¶¶32

Vikash Bind Vs the State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted; petitioners remain in custody. Trial Court directed to conclude trial within the Section 35(2) POCSO Act timeline, failing which petitioners may renew their bail prayer.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, named in Bhabua P.S. Case No. 417 of 2025 (Sections 70(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act) for alleged penetrative sexual assault/rape upon the informant's daughter aged about 17 years and 5 months, should be granted bail. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

Prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected for the present, the Court taking note that the victim categorically supported the occurrence while recording her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and that progress of the trial appears satisfactory.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Learned trial Court directed to conclude the trial within the provisioned timeline available under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, failing which the petitioners may approach for renewal of their bail.

¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.58409 of 2025 (order dated 20-11-2025): Regular bail rejected for two accused (described as uncles/agnates of the victim) in Bhabua P.S. Case No. 417 of 2025, registered under Sections 70(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for alleged penetrative sexual assault/rape upon the informant's daughter aged about 17 years and 5 months at a marriage function. Defence relied on the medical report showing no external injury (including around private parts) and contended the victim appeared major despite the school certificate indicating minority; the State/informant countered that the informant found the victim unconscious and naked near the place of occurrence, that the victim supported the gang-rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault in statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, and that trial was progressing with only the doctor and investigating officer left to be examined. Taking note of the victim's categorical support of the occurrence and satisfactory trial progress, bail stood rejected for the present. With petitioners in custody since 19.05.2025, the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within the timeline under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, failing which the petitioners may approach for renewal of bail.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58409 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2025 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

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

¶4

Vikash Bind S/O Bindu Bind R/O Vill.- Machiyawan, P.S.- Bhabhua, Dist.Kaimur

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Bind @ Sanjay Bind S/O Bachai Bind R/O Vill.Machiyawan, P.S.- Bhabhua, Dist.- Kaimur

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar.

¶9

Chinta Devi W/o Ajay Bind, R/o Vill.- Machiyawan, P.S.- Bhabhua, Dist.Kaimur

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 20-11-2025

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioners seek bail in connection with

¶16

Bhabua P.S. Case No. 417 of 2025, dated 18.05.2025

¶17

registered for the offences under Sections 70(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶18

The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and are

¶19

in custody since 19.05.2025.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners is to

¶21

commit penetrative sexual assault/rape upon the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years and 5 months along with

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58409 of 2025(3) dt.20-11-2025 2/4

¶23

other co-accused persons while she was attending marriage function.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that though as per school certificate the victim appears minor, but taking note of medical report and physical appearance, she appears major and therefore, the implication of petitioners under POCSO Act appears not convincing. As per medical report, no any external injury was noticed upon the victim and not even an injury was noticed in and around her private part, which also creates a doubt about occurrence, particularly when the victim was alleged to be raped by both petitioners. It is further submitted that the gravity of injury as appears from the version of the informant, who is none but the mother of the victim that she witnessed victim in unconscious condition in the morning, i.e., after a couple of hours of the occurrence, but in such a case, nonfinding of any medical injury makes a serious doubt qua allegation as alleged against the petitioners, who are none but the uncles and agnate of the informant’s daughter/victim. While concluding the argument it is submitted that,

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58409 of 2025(3) dt.20-11-2025 3/4

¶26

petitioners are men of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case has already concluded, chargesheet submitted, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶27

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the prayer for bail. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant namely, Tribhuwan Narayan, while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the informant is the eyewitness of the alleged occurrence to the extent that she found the victim in unconscious condition near the place of occurrence and her dress and clothes found torn to the extent that the victim was found in naked conditions. It is submitted that it is not a case of lover affair or property dispute as to suggest false implication. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the trial of this case is in progress and only two prosecution witnesses, i.e., doctor and investigating officer are remained to be examined which may shortly be examined by the Special Court. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the informant that the victim supported the occurrence of gang-rape/aggravated

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58409 of 2025(3) dt.20-11-2025 4/4

¶29

penetrative sexual assault vide recording her statement under

¶30

Section 180 and also under Section 183 of the BNSS.

¶31

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by

¶32

taking note of fact as the victim categorically supported the occurrence while recording her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS coupled with the fact that progress of the trial of this case appears satisfactory, accordingly, prayer of bail of the petitioners stand rejected for the present.

¶33

As petitioners remain in custody since 19.05.2025, accordingly, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within provisioned timeline as available under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, failing which the petitioners may approach for renewal of their bail, if so advised.

¶34

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶35

Shahnawaz/-

¶36

U T

Vikash Bind v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Bind 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

Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Milan Patel Vs The State of Bihar

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

Md. Mahfooz Vs The State of Bihar

Anand Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mosim Vs The State of Bihar