Dismissed¶23

Bambam Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 May 2026CR. MISC./87196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second regular-bail application rejected; POCSO Act Ss.4 & 17 with IPC Ss.376, 120(B), 504, 506; minor victim; statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; judicial custody since 20.08.2024; no fresh ground for bail; earlier rejection dated 18.02.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.81572 of 2024; trial-progress report dated 22.04.2026 (charge framed 18.07.2025, victim examined 21.01.2026, 1 of 7 witnesses examined); direction to conclude trial within five months; liberty to renew bail prayer; Patna High Court; Budhuchak P.S., Bhagalpur; Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; order dt.08-05-2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; however, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously, preferably within five months, failing which the petitioner may renew his bail prayer before the court below. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail (on a second/renewed application) in POCSO Case No.99 of 2024, arising out of Budhuchak P.S. Case No. 21 of 2024, instituted for offences under Sections 376, 120(B), 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, there being no fresh ground after his earlier bail rejection dated 18.02.2025.

¶15

Court's answer

There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for bail is again rejected, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of five months.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the trial is not concluded within the period of five months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer before the court below.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.87196 of 2025, order dated 08-05-2026: second/renewed regular-bail application of Bambam Singh, in judicial custody since 20.08.2024 in POCSO Case No.99 of 2024 arising out of Budhuchak P.S. Case No.21 of 2024 (District Bhagalpur), instituted under Sections 376, 120(B), 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act, rejected again. His earlier bail had been rejected on 18.02.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.81572 of 2024 with a direction to expedite trial. Per compliance report dated 22.04.2026 (per order dated 10.04.2026): charge framed 18.07.2025; victim examined 21.01.2026; one of seven charge-sheeted witnesses examined. Finding no fresh ground, the Court again rejected bail, directed conclusion of trial preferably within five months, and left the petitioner at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below if the trial is not concluded within that period.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87196 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2024 Thana- BUDHUCHAK District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Bambam Singh Son of Shatrughan Singh @ Satrudhan Singh Resident of Mohalla- Goghatta, P.S.- Budhuchak, District- Bhagalpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Batia Devi W/o Ram Swaroop Singh R/o Mohalla- Ganghatta, P.S.Budhuchak, District- Bhagalpur

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subodh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

7 08-05-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO Case No.99 of 2024, arises out of Budhuchak P.S Case No. 21 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 120(B), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

Earlier, vide order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81572 of 2024, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature and gravity of the offence, there being direct and specific allegation against the petitioner as also taking into consideration the statement of the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87196 of 2025(7) dt.08-05-2026 2/3

¶18

minor victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

¶19

In compliance of the order dated 10.04.2026, a report dated 22.04.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that charge has been framed on 18.07.2025. The victim has been examined on 21.01.2026. It is further reported that out of seven Charge-sheeted witnesses, one witness has been examined.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.08.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

¶21

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶22

There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of five months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of five months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87196 of 2025(7) dt.08-05-2026 3/3

¶25

the court below.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶27

Manish/ Sukriti

¶28

U T

Bambam Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bambam Singh 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

Minhaz Alam Vs Raj Kumar Chaudhary

Shreemati Dharamshila Devi Vs None

Anil Kumar Vs Estate of Most. Kaushalya Devi

Guddu Sah @ Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar

Parmendra Kumar @ Parmendra Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar