Dismissed¶25

Nitesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jul 2025CR. MISC./6577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court bail rejection; CR. MISC. No.6577 of 2025; decided 22-07-2025; Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra; petitioner Nitesh Kumar; Mainatand P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024, West Champaran; IPC Ss. 448, 452, 376, 420, 504, 506, 511, 34; POCSO Act S. 4; SC/ST Act Ss. 3(1)(r)(5), 3(2)(v-a); physical relationship on pretext of marriage; minor victim, consent immaterial; trial commenced, three of ten witnesses examined; custody since 14.05.2024; no criminal antecedent; bail denied at post-commencement stage of trial; APP relied on 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) para 14; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial. ¶25

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6577 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2024 Thana- MAINATAND District- West Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Nitesh Kumar S/o Jamuna Mahto Resident Of Village- Puri Pakuhwa, Mainatand, P.S.- Mainatand, Distt.- West Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Chaubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 22-07-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mainatand P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 448, 452, 376, 420, 504, 506, 511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(5), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

¶15

Allegation against the petitioner is of establishing physical relationship with the victim girl on the pretext of marriage.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6577 of 2025(6) dt.22-07-2025 2/3

¶18

omnibus allegation has been made against this petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact, victim has herself disclosed that she has love affair with the petitioner and this petitioner never compelled her to establish physical relationship. Learned counsel further submitted that trial has already commenced and out of ten witnesses, three have already been examined. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that victim is minor and her consent has no meaning in the eye of law. Learned APP for the State relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph no. 14, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has under:

¶20

“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6577 of 2025(6) dt.22-07-2025 3/3

¶22

should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.”

¶23