BIPIN KUMAR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHWETA SINGH — B.A./2420/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 96,64(1),BNS,4,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010090332026

Filing Number

B.A./5849/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

B.A./2420/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WOMEN & CHILDREN ( 196 )

Sub-Category

Protection of children from sexual offences Act ( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 96,64(1),BNS,4,POCSO,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIPIN KUMAR

    Adv. VIKAS KUMAR,NIRAJ KUMAR,NIRAJ KUMAR, ,NIRAJ KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHWETA SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF

    Summary: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application of Bipin Kumar, aged 21, who was charged under POCSO Act Section 4 and BNS Sections 96/64(1) for establishing a physical relationship with a 14-year-old girl. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the relationship was consensual, holding that the POCSO Act does not recognize consent when a minor is involved, and the serious nature of the charges warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./2420/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application of Bipin Kumar, aged 21, who was charged under POCSO Act Section 4 and BNS Sections 96/64(1) for establishing a physical relationship with a 14-year-old girl. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the relationship was consensual, holding that the POCSO Act does not recognize consent when a minor is involved, and the serious nature of the charges warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case