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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3397

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Gudiya Devi W/o- Jitendra Prasad R/v- Pachpakariya Kala Dumra Tulsi Siwan Ps- Tarwara Dist- Siwan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70620 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nafisu Zzoha
For the Respondents: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Rana Vikram Singh

The Court declined bail based on allegations supported by victim statements and prior bail context.

Headnote:The petitioners sought bail under sections 140(3), 143, 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4, 6, 12 of the POCSO Act, alleging wrongful implication in kidnapping and rape of a minor. The Court, considering direct victim statements and prior bail actions, found no merit for bail and rejected the request. As per Court observations, liberty to renew bail may be granted post three months or after the charge framing.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bhimnagar P.S. Case no. 53 of 2025 registered under sections 140(3), 143, 144 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act .

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners are said to have kidnapped the minor girl for the purpose of working in an orchestra. There is further allegation of the petitioner no. 3 having committed rape on her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. No such occurrence as alleged, specially against petitioner no. 3, has taken place. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are in custody since 13.7.2025. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. It is further submitted that co-accused Mithlesh Kumar Premchandra Bhagat has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 65877 of 2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners and the same has been supported by the victim girl in her statement recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of the petitioners having kidnapped the minor girl together with the allegation of rape having been committed by the petitioner no. 3 and the same having been supported by the minor victim in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

7. So far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, liberty is granted to them to renew their prayer for bail after three months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

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