Allowed¶21

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jul 2026CR. MISC./26725/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted; Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; Section 18 SC/ST Act bar held inapplicable; SC/ST Act sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s); POCSO Act section 8; IPC sections 363, 366A, 34; victim's section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements vague and contradictory; kidnapping of minor girl; Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/2024, East Champaran; bail bond Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties; Shailendra Singh, J.; Patna High Court Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26725 of 2026, decided 24-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/2024: petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest/surrender before the court below within six weeks, on bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions under section 482(2) of the BNSS. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/2024, is entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The petitioner is to be released on anticipatory bail in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/2024, in the event of arrest/surrender within six weeks, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions under section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The victim's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is completely vague and not specific, as she did not reveal the name of any accused, including the petitioner.

¶19

Key takeaways

The victim's statement before the Judicial Magistrate that she went according to her own will and became pregnant is completely different from her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.ratio¶21
The alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act do not attract even prima facie against the petitioner; therefore his anticipatory bail prayer is not hit by the provisions of section 18 of the SC/ST Act.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Patna High Court (Shailendra Singh, J.) allowed the petitioner's prayer for pre-arrest bail in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/2024 (East Champaran), registered for offences under sections 363, 366A read with section 34 IPC, sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and section 8 of the POCSO Act. Held: the offences under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act do not attract even prima facie — the FIR by the victim's mother was based on suspicion, the informant not being an eyewitness; the caste-based abuse allegation was not specific against the petitioner and did not take place in public view; the victim's section 161 Cr.P.C. statement was vague and named no accused, while her section 164 statement (that she went of her own will and became pregnant) was completely different from her section 161 statement. The prayer was therefore not hit by section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Bail granted on bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two like sureties, arrest/surrender within six weeks, subject to conditions under section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26725 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2024 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sharma son of Bikau Sharma Resident of VillageBaswariya Chowk Laxminagar PS -Mehsaul District -East Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Kiran Devi Wife of Late Virendra Chaudhary Resident Of Village- Barewa, Ps- Dhaka, Dist- East Champaran

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vishal Srivastava, Adv. For the State : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 24-07-2026 Heard the parties.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/ 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under section(s) 363, 366A read with section 34 of the IPC, section(s) 3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are totally false and in this regard, own statements of the victim recorded under section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. may be perused.

¶15

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 oppose the prayer of the petitioner and

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26725 of 2026(5) dt.24-07-2026 2/3

¶17

submit that the victim is a minor girl.

¶18

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and case

¶19

diary of this case. In the FIR the informant, who happens to be mother of the victim, made the allegation that when her minor daughter, the victim, did not return from the market then during the course of search they found that the petitioner and coaccused had kidnapped her with an intention to marry her. The content of the FIR goes to show that the informant is not an eye witness of the commission of the alleged kidnapping and she simply raised suspicion in respect of first part of the occurrence though she made allegation with regard to caste based abuse by the petitioner’s family members but the said allegation is not specific against the petitioner and it also does not appear that the same took place in public view. In the light of the allegations levelled by the informant, the most important evidence is of the victim recorded under section 161 and 164 of the Cr. P. C. and before the police she simply stated that accused persons, including the petitioner, abused and assaulted but did not reveal name of any of the accused including the petitioner and on that point her statement is completely vague and not specific and further before the Judicial Magistrate she stated that she went according to her own will and remained with him due to which

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26725 of 2026(5) dt.24-07-2026 3/3

¶21

she became pregnant. This statement is completely different to her statement made under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In view of all these materials, this court finds that the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act do not attract even prima facie against the petitioner, so, his prayer is not hit by the provisions of section 18 of the SC/ST Act, hence, this court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 48/ 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶22

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶23

BKS/-

¶24

U T

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Sharma 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

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Shah Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramashish Paswan @ Ramashis Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Vivekanad sharma @ Viveka kumar @ Bunty Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Matin @ Ab Matin Vs The State of Bihar

Meena Devi @ Mewa Devi Vs The State of Bihar