Dismissed¶29

Monu Pandey @ Monu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 May 2025CR. MISC./81784/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected, Patna High Court, Khatim Reza J, CR MISC 81784 of 2024, Cyber P.S. Case 67/2024 Gaya, obscene video photo viral on Instagram, minor victim aged about 16, DOB 15.01.2008 school certificate, blackmail and extortion of three lakh rupees, fake Instagram account, Sections 292 506 509 IPC, Section 67A 67B IT Act, Section 14 POCSO Act, Sections 181 183 BNSS victim statement, co-accused Amar Kumar Raushan Kumar Nilam beauty parlour, custody since 10.06.2024, charge-sheet submitted, trial to conclude within nine months, application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions of learned counsel, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Cyber P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 (offences under Sections 292, 506, 509 IPC and Sections 67A, 67B I.T. Act, with cognizance including Section 14 POCSO Act), should be granted bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions of learned counsel, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for grant of bail is rejected and the application stands dismissed.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from receipt/production of a copy of the order, without granting adjournments, and the petitioner shall cooperate in conclusion of the trial.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Khatim Reza, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.81784 of 2024, decided 08-05-2025: bail application of the accused rejected in Cyber P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 (District Gaya), registered under Sections 292, 506 and 509 IPC and Sections 67A, 67B of the I.T. Act, with cognizance taken also under Section 14 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case is that an obscene video and photo of the informant's 16-year-old daughter was made viral on Instagram by the petitioner, who befriended and continuously threatened the victim, induced preparation of the obscene video and extorted money from her, acting in concert with co-accused Amar Kumar, Raushan Kumar and their mother Nilam. Opposite party no. 2 submitted the victim's school certificate shows date of birth 15.01.2008 and that even after three lakh rupees were handed over the photographs were uploaded through a fake account. Defence relied on the victim's statements under Sections 181 and 183 B.N.S.S. attributing creation of the material to Nilam Devi's beauty parlour, and noted custody since 10.06.2024, absence of criminal antecedent and filing of charge-sheet. Bail declined; Trial Court directed to conclude the trial within nine months of receipt/production of the order's copy without adjournments, petitioner to cooperate.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81784 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Gaya

¶3

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

¶4

Monu Pandey @ Monu Kumar S/O- Vijay Pandey @ Vinay Pandey Resident of Village-Pakari, P.S-Akbarpur, Dist.-Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Shyam Bithal Son of Late Krishnalala Bithal R/O Mohalla- Vishnupad Karsily, P.S.- Vishnupad, Dist.- Gaya.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Urvashi Bharti, Adv. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 08-05-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned A.P.P for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 dated 04.05.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 292, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67A, 67B of the I.T. Act in which cognizance has been taken under Section 292, 506 and 509 of the I.P.C. and Section 14 of POCSO Act &

¶15

Section 67A and 67 B of the I.T. Act.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant came to know from his friends and family that an obscene video and photo has been made viral on

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81784 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2025 2/4

¶18

Instagram in the name of his daughter (victim) who is aged about 16 years by one Monu Pandey, who developed friendship with his daughter and was continuously threatening to release some more obscene photo of her and by inducing her he got prepared her obscene video and extorted money from her and this accused/petitioner was hand in glove with other accused person Amar Kumar, Raushan Kumar and their mother Nilam, who used to run a Beauty Parlour.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 181 and 183 of B.N.S.S. has stated that she went to learn craft in Beauty Parlour of Nilam Devi which is situated near her house, where the said Nilam Devi, in the name of pedicure and manicure, got her obscene photos and videos and sent the same to Monu Pandey (petitioner) which was made viral on Instagram writing filthy language. It is submitted that there was love affairs between the victim and the petitioner since long time. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2024,

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81784 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2025 3/4

¶21

having no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

¶22

Learned A.P.P for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years and as per her school certificate her date of birth is 15.01.2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner started blackmailing her to extort money from her in lieu of not to release her obscene photographs and even after handing over three lakh rupees, the petitioner made her obscene photographs viral on Instagram by creating fake account writing filthy language.

¶24

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected .

¶26

The learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial within nine months from the

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81784 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2025 4/4

¶28

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without granting any necessary adjournment. The petitioner shall also co-operate in conclusion of the trial.

¶29

This application stands dismissed.

¶30

(Khatim Reza, J)

¶31

prabhat/-

¶32

U T

Monu Pandey @ Monu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Pandey @ Monu 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

Mantu Rai @ Mantu @ Satyendra Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Lothra Hansda @ Lothra Hasda Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Pasi Vs The State of Bihar

Sintu Poddar @ Sintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Paswan @ Sanjay Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Shatrudhan Kumar Vs the Union of India