Patna High Court
CR. MISC./23419/2026 of Mantu Kumar Mehta @ Mantu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 10 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23419 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-472 Year-2022 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Mantu Kumar Mehta @ Mantu Kumar S/O Ratan Mehta Resident of Village- Hasanpur, Ward No. 01, P.S-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23419 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-472 Year-2022 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ======================================================
Mantu Kumar Mehta @ Mantu Kumar S/O Ratan Mehta Resident of Village- Hasanpur, Ward No. 01, P.S- Chaatapur, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
XXXXX M/O Punam Devi, W/O Jhabar Mehta Resident of Village- Hasanpur, Ward No. 01, P.S- Chaatapur, District- Supaul.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Das, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
10-07-2026 Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Mohammed Arif, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 08.01.2026, in connection with POCSO Case No. 97 of 2022 arising out of Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 472 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 20.12.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 363A, 366(A), 368, 385, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/17 of the POCSO Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he kidnapped the informant’s minor daughter for the purpose of using her for begging.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that in fact the petitioner was in love with the victim girl and petitioner has performed the marriage with the victim and the victim is living in the house of the petitioner as his wife. He further submits that the victim has conceived and gave birth to a female child on 12.05.2026. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VI cum Special Judge Exclusive POCSO Court, Supaul in connection with .POCSO Case No. 97 of 2022 arising out of Chhatapur P.S.
Case No. 472 of 2022 , subject to the following conditions :-
(1) One of the bailors should be the victim, namely, Sunita Kumari.
(2) 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.
(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(4) 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 antecedents, 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.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T