Dismissed¶25

Suman Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Oct 2025CR. MISC./63635/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected on renewal - POCSO case - IPC Ss. 363, 366(A), 326, 307, 376, 511, 302 r/w 34 - alleged attempted rape, electrocution and burn injuries causing victim's death - earlier bail rejected 28.01.2025 - trial pending at prosecution-evidence stage - liberty to renew bail after six months - direction to trial court to conclude trial within six months under POCSO Act - Murliganj P.S. Case No. 205/2024, District Madhepura - Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63635 of 2025, decided 10-10-2025 - Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; petitioner granted liberty to renew his bail prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded, and trial court directed to conclude the trial within six months having regard to the POCSO Act. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose earlier bail prayer in Murliganj P.S. Case No. 205 of 2024 (POCSO Case No. 78 of 2024) was rejected on 28.01.2025, should now be enlarged on bail on renewal of his prayer, given that the trial is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence.

¶16

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶24

Key takeaways

The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months, having regard to the provisions of the POCSO Act.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.) rejected the renewed bail application of the petitioner in Murliganj P.S. Case No. 205 of 2024, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 78 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 326, 307, 376, 511 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner took the victim to the house of Lalan Mandal, locked her in a room and attempted to commit rape; on failing, he allegedly attempted to kill her through electric current, threw hot water on her and left her at the railway station, and she died during treatment due to electrocution and septicemia. The petitioner's earlier bail prayer had been rejected by this Court on 28.01.2025 with liberty to renew after six months; a report from the trial court showed the case pending for evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Court declined bail at this stage but granted liberty to renew the prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months having regard to the provisions of the POCSO Act.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63635 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura

¶3

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

¶4

Suman Kumar S/o Gajendra Mandal @ Rajendra Mandal R/o Village - Bhatkhoda, Ward no. 1, P.S - Murliganj, District - Madhepura

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Gayatri Devi W/o Dilip Mandal R/o Village - Borarahi Ward no. 3, P.S - Janki Nagar, District - Purnea

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 10-10-2025

¶15

Heard Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, learned APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 205 of 2024 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 78 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 326, 307, 376, 511 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶17

A report has been called from the trial court and

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63635 of 2025(3) dt.10-10-2025 2/3

¶19

from perusal of which, it is clear that the case is pending for evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that he took the victim to the house of Lalan Mandal, locked her in a room and attempted to commit rape. When he was unable to commit rape, he attempted to kill her through electric current. After this, he also threw hot water and and ultimately threw her on the railway station considering dead. Due to above burn injury, she died during treatment. The victim has died due to electrocution and septicemia.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the fact is that the victim was having outside marriage with the petitioner and that she was taking selfie riding over a goods train, due to which she was electrocuted. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 04.07.2024.

¶22

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the main thrust of allegation is against this petitioner.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63635 of 2025(3) dt.10-10-2025 3/3

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, however the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded and the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months having regard to the provisions of POCSO Act.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

Sudhanshu/-

¶28

U T

Suman Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar 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

Abdullah Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sarfaraj Ansari @ Sarfaraj Miyan Vs The Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna, Bihar

Santosh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Golu Paswan @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar