Rajib Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Rai @ Rajeev … vs The State Of Bihar on 19 April, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Rajib Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Rai @ Rajeev … vs The State Of Bihar on 19 April, 2025

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5447 of 2024
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Rajib Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Rai @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Ramesh Ray @
                 Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Roy R/o vill - Ghatchekhi, Birbab, P.O.- Chikanighat,
                 P.S. - Kursakanta, Distt.- Araria represented through and under the
                 guardianship of father and natural gurardian, namely Ramesh Ray @ Ramesh
                 Rai @ Ramesh Roy, S/o chhedi Roy, R/o mal Parasi, Chikanighat, P.S. -
                 Kursakanta, Distt.- Araria, Bihar

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Poonam Kumari D/o Trilok Singh R/o vill - Ghatchekni, ward no. 12, P.S. -
                 Kursakanta, Distt.- Araria, Represented through and under the guardianship
                 of father and natural guardian Trilok Singh

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :       Mr. Kumar Ravish
                 For the Respondent/s    :       Mr. Anita Kumari Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-04-2025

The prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected by

the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Araria, in connection

with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 64 of 2024 instituted under

Sections 341/323/376/504/506 of the IPC and also under

Section 4 of the POCSO Act with added Sections 67A and 67B

of the IT Act. Vide order dated 21st October in Special (Child)

Case No. 10 of 2024.

2. This order is under challenge in the instant criminal

appeal. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner

that one Sonu Kumar is the principal accused, who forcibly took
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5447 of 2024(2) dt.19-04-2025
2/4

away the victim to a maize field and committed rape upon her.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the

time of the occurrence and he made a videography of the

incident under the instruction of the principal accused. The

alleged incident took place on 13th April 2024, when the victim

was found to be 13 years of age. The appellant was also of the

same age as that of the victim. The learned Advocate for the

appellant has prayed for bail on the ground that the appellant

was not involved in committing rape. He did a videography of

the incident, not on his own but under the direction of Sonu

Kumar. Therefore, his culpability in the said incident has not

been proved, and he should be released on bail.

3. The videography of a forcible incident of rape is in

the nature of pornography; therefore, Chapter 3 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, is primarily

attracted. Section 13 deals with the use of child for

pornographic purposes. Section 13 is reproduced below: –

“13. Use of child for pornographic

purposes.– Whoever, uses a child in any form

of media (including programme or

advertisement telecast by television channels or

internet or any other electronic form or printed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5447 of 2024(2) dt.19-04-2025
3/4

form, whether or not such programme or

advertisement is intended for personal use or

for distribution), for the purposes of sexual

gratification, which includes–

(a) representation of the sexual

organs of a child;

(b) usage of a child engaged in real

or simulated sexual acts (with or without

penetration);

(c) the indecent or obscene

representation of a child, shall be guilty of the

offence of using a child for pornographic

purposes.

Explanation.–For the purposes of

this section, the expression ”use a child” shall

include involving a child through any medium

like print, electronic, computer or any other

technology for preparation, production,

offering, transmitting, publishing, facilitation

and distribution of the pornographic material”

4. Section 14 deals with the punishment for using a

child for pornographic purposes. It is stated in sub-section (2) of

Section 4 that whoever using a child or children for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5447 of 2024(2) dt.19-04-2025
4/4

pornographic purpose under sub-section (1) commits an offence

refers to in Section 3 or Section 5 or Section 7 or Section 9 by

directly participating in such pornographic acts, and shall be

punished for the said offences also under Section 4, 6, 8, and

Section 10, respectively, in addition to the punishment provided

in sub-section (1). Therefore, making videography for

pornographic purpose is considered to be a heinous offence. If a

minor boy of 13 years is engaged in committing such an

offense, this Court does not know that within time he will reach

his majority, how, he shall be shaping.

5. Considering such aspects of the matter, I am not

inclined to release the appellant on bail. Prayer for bail is thus

rejected.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-

U      T