Prem Kumar @ Purushottam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (App 125) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 23-06-2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner and Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 02.05.2026 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026, FIR dated 10.03.2026 registered for the offence under Section 64, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 66(E), 67(A) of the I.T Act.

¶15

According to the prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner used to make physical relation with her by threatening her to show her obscene photograph to everyone and upload it on social media. Later on,even after she

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39370 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026 2/3

¶17

got married, the petitioner went to her in-laws and began forcing her to make physical relations with him. When she refused, this petitioner sent her obscene videos and photographs to her inlaws, due to which her in-laws had refused to keep her.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He next submits that it appears from the FIR that date of the occurrence was on 20.12.2025 but the FIR was lodge on 10.03.2026 i.e. after delay of about three months without giving any reason of delay and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 02.05.2026.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has committed rape upon the victim on several occasions by blackmailing her to make her obscene videos and photographs viral and apart from that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 BNSS in which she has stated that petitioner has committed rape upon her.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39370 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026 3/3

¶22

case as well as nature of allegation supported by statement of the victim, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026, pending in the Court of District and Additional Sessions-cum-Exclusive Special Judge(POCSO), Sheikhpura.

¶23

Prayer is refused.

¶24

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶25

Suruchi/-

¶26

U T

Prem Kumar @ Purushottam Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar @ Purushottam 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

Suraj Mahto @ Suraj Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Jatashankar Prasad @ Jatashankar Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Karmu Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Ghanshyam Das @ Dhanshyam Das Vs The State of Bihar