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) 4530

PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J
Rupesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76138 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Mukherjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Parmanand Kumar

The court granted bail based on the absence of prior criminal records and the victim's voluntary relationship, emphasizing conditions to ensure trial integrity.

Headnote:This case relates to a bail application under Section 81 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner was accused of illicit conduct with a minor. The Court considered the factual matrix, particularly the voluntary nature of the relationship cited by the victim, and the absence of prior criminal records, leading to a favorable ruling. The petitioner is granted bail with conditions focusing on cooperation and the prevention of evidence tampering.

Table of Content
1. bail application for accused based on the victim's voluntary relationship and no prior criminal records. (Para 4 , 5)
2. court's concerns regarding cooperation and evidence integrity while granting bail. (Para 6)
3. conditional verdict issued for bail approval. (Para 7)

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

4 21-01-2026 Despite of entered appearance through Vakalatnama, no one appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2. 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

2025, F.I.R. dated 06.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 81 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita , 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act .

4. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that on 04.05.2025, the petitioner came to meet her daughter and made physical relation with her. It is further alleged that on pretext of marriage, the petitioner used to make physical relation with informant’s daughter for about six months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. From bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner but it appears from the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S that she has voluntarily established relationship with the petitoner. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 07.06..2025.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Banka in following conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification..

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

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