Patna High Court – Orders
Fuchu Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 20 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.425 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Fuchu Kumar Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav R/O Village- Kishunpura, P.S-
Magadh Medical College, District.- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Kumari D/O Surendra Paswan and W/O Boby Kumar R/O Village-
Kishunpura, P.S- Magadh Medical College, District- Gaya, presently
residing at Village- Godawari, P.O- Chand Chaura, P.S- Rampur, Dist.-
Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Sp. P.P
For the NCB : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed for setting aside
the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Bail Application Special
Act no. 3753 of 2024 in POCSO Case no. 26/2021 arise out of
Manila P.S. Case no. 6/2021 registered U/s 376, 377/34 I.P.C.,
Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)/3(2)(v-a)
SC/ST Act and to grant the appellant regular bail in connection
with the aforesaid case.
3. The following order was passed on 03.05.2024 in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.425 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025
2/4
Cr. Misc. No. 76382 of 2023, which reads as under:
“The order dated 19.04.2024 be treated
to be the order no. 04.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a
case registered for the offence under Sections
376, 377, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 04
of the POCSO Act, under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)
read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of Prevention of
SC/ST Act.
4. From reading of the F.I.R. it appears
that this case does not appear to be a case of
regular bail. The F.I.R. is such that this Court is
not giving the details of the F.I.R. Petitioner is in
jail since 08.06.2023.
5. Considering the gravity of offence
and nature of accusation against the petitioner, I
am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed. The court below is
directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
trial has started and three witnesses have been examined.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
3539 has held as under:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences
like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial
com-mences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court the it the
frial Court or the High Court should be loath in
entertaining the bail application of the ac-
cused.
15. Over a period of time, we have
noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted
af-ter the charge is framed and just before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.425 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025
3/4victim is to be examined by the prosecution
before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted
once the recording of the oral evidence of the
victim is complete by looking into some
discrepancies here or there in the deposition
and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the
aforesaid is not a correct practice that the
Courts be-low should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach to its
final conclusion which may either result in the
conviction of the accused or acquittal of the
accused. The moment the High Court exercises
its discretion in favour of the accused and
orders release of the accused on bail by looking
into the deposition of the victim, it will have its
own impact on the pending trial when it comes
to appreciating the oral evi-dence of the victim.
It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly
delayed and that too for no fault on the part of
the accused, the Court may be justified in
ordering his release on bail on the ground that
right of the accused to have a speedy trial has
been infringed”
6. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs.
State of Rajasthan (supra), I am not inclined to grant bail to the
appellant.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya is directed to
ensure attendance of the witnesses in the trial so that the trial is
not delayed.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya for its compliance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.425 of 2025(3) dt.20-06-2025
4/4
through FAX or e-mail forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T