SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4376

PATNA HIGH COURT
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J
Ajeet Kumar Singh @ Ajit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65340 of 2025 | Special POCSO Case No. 188 of 2025 | PS. Case No.-506 Year-2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
For the Informant: Mr. Binay Kumar Singh

Bail denied due to the seriousness of allegations and insufficient justification for release.

Headnote:The High Court considered the petitioner's application for bail under Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court dismissed the bail plea, citing serious allegations of sexual exploitation against the petitioner and a lack of merit in the defense's arguments regarding the FIR delay and witness statements. The Court noted that no substantial evidence supported the case for bail, keeping the delicate nature of the allegations in mind. The trial has been directed to be expedited by the learned Trial Court.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER

4 01-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 188 of 2025 arising out of Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 506 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 6 4 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act .

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he sexually exploited the informant’s minor daughter over a long period and threatened her not to disclose the said acts to anyone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is sufficient delay in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation, which in itself, raises doubt over the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submitted that during investigation, the statement of other students were taken but none has supported the case of the prosecution. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has corroborated the contents of the FIR and the same is further substantiated by the medical report of the victim, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as per the statutory provisions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top