Patna High Court – Orders
Guriya Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 15 July, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.592 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2019 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Mithilesh Mandal S/O Manohar Mandal R/O Vill.- Madhuban Tintanga, P.S.-
Bihariganj, Dist.- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Nisha Kumari D/o Gohgahuni, W/o Priyanshi Kumar R/o vill- Dadua, Post -
Dumra, P.S. - Bhawanipur, Distt- Purnea.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 645 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2019 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Guriya Kumari D/o Botal Mandal Resident of Village-Madhuban Tintanga,
P.S.-Bihariaganj (Bihariganj), District- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Nisha Kumari D/o Ganga Muni R/o Vill- Dadwa, P.S.- Bhawanipur, Dist-
Purnea.
3. Khushbhu Kumari D/o Umesh Mandal R/o Vill- Dadwa, P.S.- Bhawanipur,
Dist- Purnea.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1560 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2019 Thana- INDUSTRIAL District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Tinku Mandal S/o Chandreshwari Mandal R/o vill - Dadwa Tintanga, P.S.-
Bhawanipur (Akbarpur O.P), Distt.- Purniya.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 592 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl PP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 645 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, Addl PP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1560 of 2025)
For the Appellant : Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, Addl PP
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
2/9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 15-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.
2. Despite service of notice on respondent nos. 2 and
3, they have chosen not to enter appearance in this case.
3. The appellants are seeking suspension of sentence
and release on bail during pendency of the appeals. They are
convicted vide judgment dated 01.03.2025 and sentenced vide
order dated 18.03.2025 by learned Exclusive Special (POCSO
Act) Judge-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge- VI,
Bhagalpur in connection with POCSO Case No. 85 of 2019
arising out of Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019. By
the judgment of conviction, the appellant in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 592 of 2025, namely, Mithilesh Mandal has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of
the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘), Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short
‘POCSO Act‘) and under Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITP Act‘)
and the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2025, namely,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
3/9
Guriya Kumari has been convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 17 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and
Section 5(1) of the ITP Act. The appellant in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 592 of 2025 namely Mithilesh Mandal and the
appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2025 namely Guriya
Kumari have been awarded a maximum imprisonment for 20
years with fine of Rs. 60,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act whereas the appellant in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1560 of 2025 has been convicted
only for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC and
Section 5 (1) of the ITP Act. He has been awarded a sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under
Section 366A IPC and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. For the offence
under Section 5 of the ITP Act, he has been ordered to undergo
sentence of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
4. The prosecution case is based on the First
Information Report dated 27.07.2019 lodged on the basis of
the written information furnished by one of the victims
(respondent no.2). In her written information, respondent no.2
has alleged as under:
On the occasion of Saraswati Puja in 2018, she was
returning home at 04:00 PM from her school when she saw
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
4/9that a white colour Scorpio was parked on the road near the
Cooperative Bhawan. When she reached near the Scorpio, one
boy opened the door of the Scorpio and dragged her inside the
vehicle in which two boys were already sitting. She knew the
boy who had dragged her inside, his name was Tinku Mandal.
They closed her eyes and mouth and after some time, they
were talking that they had reached Bhagalpur. They took her to
a building situated at Zero Mile Jyoti Bihar and gave her some
food. At night, two persons raped her, she protested then one
woman, namely, Guriya Kumari entered the room and
assaulted her. The victim, later on, came to know that Tinku
Mandal and Guriya Kumari along with 5-6 unknown persons
used to kidnap girls and they were forced to establish physical
relationship. The victim somehow escaped from the place,
reached her home and lodged the case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
from the evidences available on record and from the pattern of
cross-examination of the prosecution witness, it would appear
that the victim was working in an orchestra party and she has
admitted that she used to participate in the dance programmes
at various places where she was being taken by Mithilesh
Kumar. It is alleged that Mithilesh Kumar was pressurising her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
5/9
to establish sexual relationship with other persons.
6. Learned counsel submits that the fact that the victim
girl claims to have been kidnapped while returning from her
school after Saraswati Puja in the year 2018 but she has lodged
the case on 27.07.2019, the fact that in between this period her
parents did not lodge any information with police about the
kidnapping of the victim would give rise to strong doubt over the
prosecution story. It has come in evidence that the victim was a
married lady and her mother (PW-6) has stated in her deposition
that she had informed her sasural people about the missing of
her daughter and had gone in search of her but her sasural people
had not lodged any sanha or case. She has stated that her
daughter was being taken to orchestra programme by Mithilesh
Kumar and Guriya.
7. It is submitted that the victim was examined by
Doctor (PW-2) who did not find any mark of injury either
external or on private parts. The age of the victim has been
assessed by the Department of Radiology at JLNMCH, BGP
between 16 to 18 years. It is, thus, submitted that the conduct
of the parents of the victim would show that they were well
aware that the victim was working in orchestra party and at no
point of time, they had ever lodged any case against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
6/9
appellants. Father of the another victim (respondent no. 3) has
deposed as PW-8. He has admitted that the victim (respondent
no.3) was working in orchestra party and she had never fled
away from her house. She was regularly coming to her house,
she was married in the year 2021. She was in orchestra since
the year 2019 and had left the orchestra in the year 2021. PW-
3 has in fact not supported the prosecution case and his
statements are at material variance from that of the evidence of
PW-5 if compared with her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
In fact, respondent no.3 (PW-5) has not supported the
prosecution case. She has not identified the accused persons.
8. It is lastly submitted that in any case, the
appellants Mithilesh Mandal and Guriya have been sentenced
for 20 years rigorous imprisonment by the learned trial court
without appreciating that the POCSO Act was amended w.e.f.
16.08.2019 only, therefore, the amended Penal provision by
which the minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment was
brought into existence in the Statute Book was not present at
the time of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, the
minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was 10
years.
9. It is submitted that the appellant Mithilesh and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
7/9
Guriya Kumari have spent six years eight months in jail, in
ultimate analysis, the appellants are likely to succeed and in
any case, the order of sentence cannot sustain the test of law.
Therefore, the appellants Mithilesh and Guriya having spent
six years eight months in custody and this appeal being that of
the year 2025 which is not likely to be heard in near future,
they would deserve suspension of sentence and release on
bail.
10. About the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1560
of 2025 namely, Tinku Mandal, it is stated that he has spent
more than half of the sentence awarded to him.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has opposed the prayer of the appellants. It is submitted
that as per the prosecution case, the appellants were
instrumental in forcing the victim girls in prostitution. It is,
however, not contested that the parents of the victim girls had
never informed police about the missing of their daughters and
father of the second victim girl, who is respondent no.3 in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2025 has not supported the
prosecution case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State does not dispute that the POCSO Act was amended on
16.08.2019 and by virtue of the amended provision, minimum
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
8/9
imprisonment of 20 years was brought into existence under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act w.e.f. 16.08.2019 only.
12. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances, the submissions noted hereinabove and the
evidences which we have prima facie gone through, taking
note of the evidence of the mother of the victim (respondent
no.2) that no information regarding missing of her daughter
was registered either as sanha or by way of a case and then the
evidence of the father of the second victim (respondent no.3)
who has not supported the prosecution case and further
considering that the appellants Mithilesh and Guriya have
spent six years eight months in custody, in ultimate analysis
the sentence awarded to them seems to be at higher side
because the learned trial court could not take note of the fact
that Section 6 of the POCSO Act was amended w.e.f.
16.08.2019 and the sentence to these appellants was required
to be awarded only in terms of the provisions existing at the
time of occurrence, further considering that the appeals are not
likely to be heard in near future and the appellant Tinku
Mandal has already spent more than half of the sentence, we
direct suspension of sentence and release of the above-named
appellants on bail during pendency of the appeals on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.592 of 2025(5) dt.15-07-2026
9/9
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
(POCSO Act) Judge-cum-District and Additional Sessions
Judge-VI, Bhagalpur in POCSO Case No. 85 of 2019 arising
out of Industrial Area P.S. Case No. 103 of 2019.
13. Fine, if any, imposed as part of sentence as
against the appellants shall remain suspended during pendency
of the appeals.
14. It is clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative in nature for the
purpose of consideration of the prayer of bail which would not
cause prejudice to either of the parties.
15. List these appeals for hearing on their turn.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U T
