Patna High Court – Orders
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjit Kumar @ Prince … vs The State Of Bihar on 19 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24077 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjit Kumar @ Prince Kumar S/o Ravindra Sah R/o
Village - Ghiwadhar Ward No. 3, P.S - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. X S/o Y R/o Village - Ghiwadhar Ward No. 3, P.S - Harsidhi, District - East
Champaran
3. XX D/o YY R/o Village - Ghiwadhar Ward No. 3, P.S - Harsidhi, District -
East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 19-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant Mr.
Sitesh Kashyap.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Harsidhi
P.S. Case No. 515 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections
137/87 of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8 and 12 of
the POCSO Act.
3. The allegation is that the petitioner kidnapped the
daughter of the informant. The daughter of the informant was
recovered and she stated that for about last one year she used to talk
to the petitioner and thereafter she stopped talking. On the fateful day
while she had gone to attend the call of nature she was kidnapped by
the petitioner and taken to Nepal where she was raped.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24077 of 2026(3) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
case. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2026 and has got no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 has also
appeared and he states that now she is an adult and she had married
the petitioner.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the
Informat Mr. Sitesh Kashyap have vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. The victim claimed herself to be 17 years of age. She
was assessed by the learned Magistrate to be 18 years of age. The
medical report found her age to be 18 to 19 years. The boy is aged
about 25 years. In her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the girl
has not talked about rape. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS
she has alleged that she was raped. When the girl below 18 years is
involved in a relationship with the teen age boy or little over the teen
age, it is always a question mark as to how such relationship could be
defined, though such relationship would be the result of mutual
innocence and biological attraction. Such relationship cannot be
construed as an unnatural one or alien to between relationship of
opposite sexes. But in such cases where the age of the girl is below
18 years, even though she was capable of giving consent for
relationship, being mentally matured, unfortunately, the provisions of
the POCSO Act get attracted if such relationship transcends beyond
platonic limits, attracting strong arm of law sanctioned by the
provisions of POCSO Act, catching up with the so called offender of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24077 of 2026(3) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
sexual assault, warranting a severe imprisonment of 7/10 years.”. In
the case of State of U.P. v. Anurudh reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 40 in Para 19, it is held as under:-
“When it comes to consensual
relationships between teenagers, four
factors have been highlighted which, is
crucial for the Courts to consider:
“A. Assess the Context: Each
case should be evaluated on its individual
facts and circumstances. The nature of the
relationship and the intentions of both
parties should be carefully examined.
B. Consider Victim’s Statement:
The statement of the alleged victim should
be given due consideration. If the
relationship is consensual and based on
mutual affection, this should be factored into
decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice:
Ignoring the consensual nature of a
relationship can lead to unjust outcomes,
such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial
system should aim to balance the protection
of minors with the recognition of their
autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age
comes out to be an important factor.
D. Judicial Discretion: Courts
should use their discretion wisely, ensuring
that the application of POCSO does not
inadvertently harm the very individuals it is
meant to protect.”
8. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble SC in the
case of State of U.P. v. Anurudh reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
40 and the age of the victim as well as the age of the petitioner and
that there is a hint of relationship, this Court is inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Learned District and Additional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24077 of 2026(3) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
Sessions Judge cum Exclusive Special Judge POCSO, Motihari, East
Champaran/concerned Court in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case
No. 515 of 2024.
10. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall
not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
