Chunchun Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74127 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Punam Devi W/O Anil Paswan R/O Village- Naula, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shilpi Kumari D/O Venkatesh Kumar Singh R/O Mahe, P.S- Singhiya, DistSamastipur. At present S.H.O., Mahila P.S., Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 72116 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Chunchun Prasad S/o Late Nawal Kishore Singh @ Nawal Kishore R/o Village- Maranchi, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Maranchi, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 74127 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 72116 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026 Heard Mr. Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 74127 of 2025 and Mr. Parmod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 72116 and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State in Cr. Misc. No. 74127 of 2025 and Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the State in

2/4 Cr. Misc. No. 72116 of 2025.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 72 of 2025, arising out of Mahila PS Case No. 15 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 18.04.2025, on receiving secret information, police raided a house where a man, a woman, and a minor girl were found in suspicious circumstances. The minor stated that she was lured to the house by a lady and was subjected to an attempt of inappropriate physical contact by an unknown man. During the search, liquor bottles, mobile phones, condoms, cigarettes, and other articles were recovered.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 19.04.2025. Petitioners bear no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioners' counsel that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill motive of the informant and personal

3/4 animosity. The allegations levelled against them are wholly false, concocted, and unsupported by any credible material. Petitioner, namely, Chunchun Prasad is a truck owner, and the husband of petitioner, namely, Poonam Devi (Anil Paswan) was working as a Khalasi on his truck; owing to his absence, the petitioner had merely visited his house, during which the police allegedly arrived and arrested both petitioners without any lawful basis.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that victim has fully supported the prosecution case.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of the offence as also the fact that victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners is hereby rejected. 8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

4/4 9.

However, petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T