Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotoo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57562 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-503 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotoo Kumar Son of Munchun Mandal Resident of village - Sajal Korama, P.S.- Rajoun, District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pawan Mandal Son of Bhojal Mandal Resident of village - Sajal Korama, P.S.- Rajoun, District - Banka.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Rajoun P.S. Case No. 503 of 2024 registered under Sections 96, 352, 3(5) of B.N.S. and 8/12 of POCSO Act.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner took away the minor daughter of the informant. When the informant went to his house to inquire into the matter, the parents of the aforesaid petitioner allegedly abused the informant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The victim did not support the prosecution case in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. She stated that she

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57562 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 has solemnized marriage with the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statement of the victim has no relevance, as she is a minor girl aged about 14 to 15 years.

6. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.10.2024, and the report of the learned trial court shows that only the victim, the I.O., and the Doctor remain to be examined.

7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

8. The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T