Rohit Kumar @ Chunnu @ Chunnu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sripriya Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP : Mr. Presu Snehil, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 20-05-2026

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶14

learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 828 of 2025, for allegedly having committed offence under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 74, 78, 318(3) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to the effect that she is a student of Daffodils Public School and also studies in a coaching institute which is behind

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16368 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026 2/4

¶18

Fatuha Police Station. While going for coaching classes, the petitioner and other co-accused used to tease her and further used abusive language against her. The petitioner and other coaccused used to send messages from different instagram IDs to the informant. On 08.10.2025, when the informant came from school, they stopped her on way and , assaulted her and grabbed her hand and tried to kidnap her on their motorcycle. On hulla, they torn her cloth and made a video on road. They also blackmailed her and taken away gold and silver ornaments from her. Due to fear, she gave Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 22,000/- to the petitioner and other co-accused on 16.10.2025, 17.10.2025 and 20.10.2025, respectively.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant are neighbours and the matter has been compromised in between the parties and the parties are not willing to proceed with the case any further. A compromise petition has already been filed before the Court of Sub-Judge, POCSO, Patna on 30.01.2026 and a petition for permission to compromise the case, has also been filed on the same day. She further submits that good sense has prevailed in between the parties and they are not ready to proceed with the case. She further submits that the petitioner has got two other

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16368 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026 3/4

¶21

cases pending against him, in which he is on bail.

¶22

The learned counsel for the informant submits

¶23

that although the informant has given her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which she has supported the case of the prosecution, but now, both the parties have entered into the compromise and does not intend to proceed with the case any further.

¶24

The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim girl has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

¶25

Having heard the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that vide order dated 06.04.2026, while issuing notice to the opposite party no.2 i.e. the father of the victim girl, case diary as well as the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS was called for. The learned counsel for the informant appears and submits that the informant does not want to pursue the case any further and a compromise has already been entered into between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16368 of 2026(3) dt.20-05-2026 4/4

¶27

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VII-Cum-Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO, Patna in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 828 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:

¶28

(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶29

(Ritesh Kumar, J)

¶30

Ajay/Rajesh/-

¶31

U T

Rohit Kumar @ Chunnu @ Chunnu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar @ Chunnu @ Chunnu 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

Rajendra @ Raja Dodwadia @ Raju Dodwadia Vs The State of Bihar

Raghuveer Prasad Yadav @ Raghubir Prasad @ Raghubir Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Asish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raju @ Raju Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Sarika @ Sarika Kumari Vs The State of Bihar