Allowed¶32

Sudama Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Anticipatory bail – S.482(2) BNSS / S.438(2) CrPC

Patna HC13 Jul 2026CR. MISC./22858/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22858 of 2026, decided 13-07-2026 by Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.: anticipatory bail allowed in POCSO/kidnapping FIR (Hilsa P.S. Case No.680 of 2025, S.137(2) BNS, S.8 POCSO Act); victim's S.183 BNSS statement not incriminating; bail bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties; conditions under S.438(2) CrPC / S.482(2) BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 7th District Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Nalanda, Biharsharif, in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.680 of 2025, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS. ¶32

Sudama Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22858 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-680 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

Sudama Kumar, S/o Pappu Prasad, R/o Village - Hanumangardh, P.S. - Chandi, Dist. - Nalanda.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

XXX, Son of XXX R/o Karor Nagar (Dabaul), Ward No. 26, P.S. - Hilsa, Nalanda.

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 13-07-2026

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶18

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶19

The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and apprehending his arrest in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.680 of 2025 registered under Sections 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘B.N.S.’) but, later on Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶20

Allegation against petitioner is to kidnap the minor daughter of informant aged about 15 years for the purpose of illicit intercourse/marriage with another person.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22858 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026 2/4

¶23

petitioner that the victim daughter of the informant and this petitioner was in same class and in same school and on 26.09.2025 while they were returning together, without passing any information to her parents, the victim daughter of the informant went to Sheikhpura, Chandi to meet with cousin sister of the petitioner, whereafter she returned to her parental home on same very day. It is submitted that out of aforesaid confusion, the present case was lodged. It is also submitted that this fact can be gathered from the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, where she stated nothing incriminating qua petitioner regarding kidnapping and sexual assault. It is further argued that the victim denied to join the medical examination and, therefore, in want of corroborating medical evidence, it cannot be gathered safely that any penetrative sexual assault/rape was committed upon the victim daughter of the informant. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶24

Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the allegation is specific against this petitioner.

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22858 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026 3/4

¶26

Being POCSO case, the notice was issued to the informant/O.P. No.2 through both processes i.e. ordinary as well as registered cover. It appears from the office report that the notice as issued through ordinary process was received by the brother of the informant. In view of same, it appears to this Court that the notice regarding present proceeding validly served upon the informant.

¶27

Despite of service, none appears on behalf of the informant to join the present proceeding.

¶28

In view of aforesaid factual submissions and

¶29

by taking note of fact, as the allegation of kidnapping and sexual assault prima facie not appears to be supported by the victim daughter of the informant while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, as discussed aforesaid, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, who is a man of clean antecedent, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

¶30

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22858 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026 4/4

¶32

learned 7^th District Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Nalanda, Biharsharif in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No.680 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).

¶33

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶34

Sanjeet/-

¶35

U T

Sudama Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama 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

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs The state of Bihar

Raj Kumar Manjhi @ Raj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nutan Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Dhananjay Prasad @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar