Prince Kumar vs State of Bihar — 1012/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 366,366(A),376,120(B),34. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 05th May 2026.
Anticipatory Bail - ABP
CNR: BRPA010047472026
e-Filing Number
11-03-2026
Filing Number
4134/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
1012/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
DJ Div. Patna Sadar
Judge
3-Ex. Court POCSO - I
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
100
Police Station
PANDARAK
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prince Kumar
Adv. RAVI KUMAR PANDEY
Respondent(s)
State of Bihar
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Ex. Court POCSO - I
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-05-2026 | HEARING |
| 30-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 29-04-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of a 15-year-old petitioner accused of enticing and marrying a 16-year-old girl under the POCSO Act and IPC sections. The court found that the petitioner had already surrendered by appearing before it for juvenility determination, thereby eliminating any genuine apprehension of arrest. After declaring the petitioner a juvenile, the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, which is the appropriate forum to decide his release under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act based on reformative principles. The court emphasized that both children were minors of comparable age acting under emotional immaturity, warranting a child-centric, protective approach rather than strict criminal liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of a 15-year-old petitioner accused of enticing and marrying a 16-year-old girl under the POCSO Act and IPC sections. The court found that the petitioner had already surrendered by appearing before it for juvenility determination, thereby eliminating any genuine apprehension of arrest. After declaring the petitioner a juvenile, the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, which is the appropriate forum to decide his release under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act based on reformative principles. The court emphasized that both children were minors of comparable age acting under emotional immaturity, warranting a child-centric, protective approach rather than strict criminal liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts