Dismissed¶24

Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Feb 2025CR. MISC./80501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court rejected bail (CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80501 of 2024, order dt.20-02-2025, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) of Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar, accused under Sections 376, 341, 324, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act (Jamui P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024; POCSO Case No. 33 of 2024); custody since 12-01-2024; one criminal antecedent; bail denied on nature/gravity of offence coupled with victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; trial court told to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the statement of the victim, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar in POCSO Case No. 33 of 2024 (arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024), instituted under Sections 376, 341, 324, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the victim's statement.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the statement of the victim, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Key takeaways

The prayer for grant of bail was rejected.ratio¶24
The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial without undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.), CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80501 of 2024, oral order dated 20-02-2025. Petitioner Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar, accused in POCSO Case No. 33 of 2024 arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 (Sections 376, 341, 324, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act), in custody since 12-01-2024 and bearing one disclosed criminal antecedent, sought bail. Allegations: drunken break-in at the informant's house, attempted rape, assault on her father, and an earlier alleged rape 20 days prior, the informant remaining silent out of fear of threats. Defence pointed to the delayed FIR, absence of medical examination/report (Section 53 Cr.P.C.), negative forensic findings, witnesses confirming a prior love affair, and a medical-board age assessment of 19-20 years; charge sheet stood submitted. A.P.P. and informant's counsel opposed, relying on the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement supporting the prosecution. Weighing the nature and gravity of the offence together with the victim's statement, the Court held itself not inclined to grant bail and rejected the prayer; the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial without undue delay or unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80501 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui

¶3

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

¶4

Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar Son of Ramji Bind Vill.- Harla, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Shweta Kumari D/O Mukesh Bind Vill.- Harla, Post- Amrath, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP For the Informant : Ms. Priya Raj, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mandal, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 20-02-2025

¶14

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

¶15

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 33 of 2024 arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 376, 341, 324, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

3. Prosecution case in short is that petitioner in a drunken state, broke into the informant’s house, attempted to rape her and assaulted her father, but was caught by villagers

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80501 of 2024(4) dt.20-02-2025 2/3

¶18

and handed over to the police. It is further alleged that petitioner had raped her 20 days earlier but she remained silent out of fear, as he had also threatened her with dire consequences.

¶19

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 12-01-2024. Petitioner bears one criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶20

5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, as evident from the delayed FIR, which raises serious doubts about prosecution’s case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite claims of arrest on the spot, no mandatory medical examination was conducted, violating Section 53 of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that in absence of a medical report for the informant’s father contradicts allegations of injury, and forensic tests found no evident of sexual assault. Learned counsel goes on to submit that witnesses statements confirm a prior love affair, and medical board determined the informant’s age to be 19-20 years. It is lastly submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶21

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80501 of 2024(4) dt.20-02-2025 3/3

¶23

bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case. Other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

¶24

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the statement of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected .

¶25

8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Kumar @ Prem Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Gond @ Pramod Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Kachalu Das @ Kayalu Das Vs The State of Bihar

Sani Singh @ Salun Yadav @ Selun Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nagendra Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Menka Devi Vs The State of Bihar