Dismissed¶¶23

Ajit Kumar Chaupal @ Ajit Chaupal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Jul 2026CR. MISC./72738/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.72738 of 2025, decided 13-07-2026, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. Regular bail rejected in case under Section 70(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act arising from Biraul P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025, District Darbhanga; abduction and rape of informant's minor daughter on May 29, 2025; charge sheet filed; defence pleas of medical age 18-19 years, no genital injury, contradictions in victim's statements under Sections 180/183 BNSS 2023, love affair; custody since 31.05.2025; trial expedited within six months with liberty to renew bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite trial preferably within six months; petitioner permitted to renew bail prayer before the Court below if trial not concluded within six months. ¶¶23

Ajit Kumar Chaupal @ Ajit Chaupal Vs The State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite trial preferably within six months; petitioner permitted to renew bail prayer before the Court below if trial not concluded within six months.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in connection with Biraul P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 instituted under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Bail refused: considering the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, and the charge sheet having been submitted under Section 70(2) BNS 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act, the Court was not inclined to grant bail and rejected the prayer.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Trial Court directed to expedite the trial without undue delay or unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of six months.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Petitioner at liberty to renew his bail prayer before the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Section 70(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 4 & 6, POCSO Act — Biraul P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025, District Darbhanga — Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) rejected the petitioner's bail prayer. Prosecution alleged that on May 29, 2025 the informant's minor daughter was abducted by three individuals, including the petitioner, and subjected to rape, the victim later identifying the assailants. Petitioner, in custody since 31.05.2025 and claiming no criminal antecedents, pleaded false implication, a medical age assessment of 18-19 years, absence of genital injury or stains on clothes, contradictions between the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023, and an alleged love affair. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the charge sheet submitted under Section 70(2) BNS 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act, bail was declined; the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial preferably within six months, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within that period.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72738 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga

¶3

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

¶4

Ajit Kumar Chaupal @ Ajit Chaupal S/O Ghuran Chaupal R/o vill - Balia, P.S.- Biraul, Distt.- Darbhanga

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Md Faiyaz S/o Md. Sabbir R/o vill - Balia, P.O. - Afjala Balia, P.S.- Biraul, Distt.- Darbhanga

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kedar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 13-07-2026 Heard Mr. Kedar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State. Despite valid service of notice, none appears for the informant. Perused the case diary.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Biraul

¶14

P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

Prosecution case in short is that on May 29, 2025, the minor daughter of the informant was abducted from near their home by three individuals, including the petitioner, and subjected to rape. The victim was later discovered in an orchard,

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72738 of 2025(4) dt.13-07-2026 2/3

¶17

and after regaining consciousness, she identified the assailants, who subsequently escaped while threatening the informant.

¶18

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶19

It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per medical report, age of the victim is assessed between 18-19 years. It is also mentioned that there was no any genital injury or any stain on the cloths. There is contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim, which fact is corroborated during investigation and they were in talking terms even on the date of alleged occurrence.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is fervently submitted that charge sheet in this case is submitted under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act as also the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence, he does not

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72738 of 2025(4) dt.13-07-2026 3/3

¶22

deserve the privilege of bail.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence as also charge sheet being submitted under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected .

¶24

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of six months.

¶25

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶27

Raj Kishore/-

¶28

U T

Ajit Kumar Chaupal @ Ajit Chaupal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar Chaupal @ Ajit Chaupal 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

Ashwini @ Anshu Kumar Chaubey Vs The State of Bihar

Lalan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar @ Prince Patel Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dilanand Das Vs The State Of Bihar

Gulshan Kumar @ Gaurav @ Gulshan Kumar Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar