Patna High Court
Brishan Patel @ Brishin Patel vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39375 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2023 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Brishan Patel @ Brishin Patel son of Gulzar Prasad @ Gulzar Prasad Patel
R/o Village -Nagwa, P.S. -Patdhi Belsar, Dist.- Vaishali P/A- At gulzar
Mansion, Road No. 10, Rajendra Nagar, Ps- Kadam Kuan, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Juli Kumari Daughter of Harendra Ray village- Basauli, Ps- Kudhani, Dist-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Shashi Priya, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Shashi Priya, learned counsel, for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Court POCSO (II), Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.56 of 20236 (Muzaffarpur) by which application for discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 2/14
3. The facts giving rise to the present application are to the effect that the complainant/ opposite party no.2 had met with the petitioner, who is a political leader, in a public meeting where she requested the petitioner for employment, upon which the petitioner gave her his name and mobile number with address and told her to meet him at Patna. Later on, the complainant/opposite party no.2 received a phone call in which she was told to meet the petitioner. When complainant /opposite party no.2 reached the apartment of the petitioner, she found some girls were also present at his flats. The petitioner told him that he was in search of some talented girl to give a ticket to contest the election from RJD. Thereafter, she was made to stay in the same flat as the petitioner and in the night the petitioner sexually abused her and, despite her cries and protests, made physical relationship with the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner frequently started sexually abusing her and on protest, the petitioner blackmailed the complainant/opposite party no.2 by showing her obscene pictures and video clips. Anyhow, the complainant/opposite party no.2 managed to get the pictures and video clip on her mobile phone and narrated the whole incident to her family. It is further alleged that the complainant and her family members were threatened to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 3/14 killed by the petitioner and thereafter the complainant/opposite party no.2 went to the police station and lastly she filed a complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 56 of 2023 (Muzaffarpur).
4. Thereafter, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation along with three inquiry witnesses, namely, Ravi Prakash, Manjay Kumar and Vikash Kumar and thereafter the learned Special Judge POCSO-II took cognizance for the offences under Sections 6, 12, 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Sections 323, 341, 354(B), 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge. The learned Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the order taking cognizance without perusal of the entire material and documents on record, which will in fact enable the petitioner to be discharged. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 4/14 falsely been implicated in this case, as he is 77 years old and a very senior politician in the State of Bihar. It has next been submitted that from perusal of the complaint, it would be evident that neither in the complaint nor in her solemn affirmation the complainant has stated any specific date and month or year in which she was sexually abused rather a very vague statement of the occurrence having started two years back has been made.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that if the solemn affirmation of the complainant is taken into account, even then no prima facie offence is being made out against the petitioner. The three inquiry witnesses, who have been examined in support of the complainant's case, have not corroborated the version of the complainant. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the own brother of the complainant, who stood as an inquiry witness No.2 has stated the age of his sister, i.e., the complainant, to be 22 years, which is contradictory to the statement of the complainant, who claims herself to be a minor when the incident is said to have started, while inquiry witness No.3 is admittedly not an eyewitness and he has not stated any date of occurrence or time of the so-called occurrence as alleged in the complaint.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 5/14
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that on account of such evidence before the learned Court, the order taking cognizance was a mechanical and routine order passed without application of judicious mind, however, at the stage of discharge, the learned Trial Court ought to have been particular with the details of the complaint and the evidence, which has come in support of the same and as stated above, even if the said statements are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that in the entire complaint not a single date has been referred to barring a sweeping statement that the first meeting was around two years ago, which was a deliberate attempt to make out a case under the POCSO Act as admittedly during filing of the complaint the complainant was a major.
9. Learned Senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court that a pendrive containing some video of sexual exploitation of the opposite party no.2 is said to have been there, submitted by the complainant, however, it has not surfaced on record till the date of passing of the impugned order rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner.
10. Learned Senior counsel has pointed out that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 6/14 allegations of the complainant meeting the petitioner in a political rally in the year 2021 are also falsified on account of the fact that it was the period of COVID-19 and there was a total prohibition of assembly of persons at one place and therefore, the allegations of the opposite party no.2 meeting the petitioner at such rally prima facie becomes false and therefore, the entire complaint is vitiated because of malicious prosecution.
11. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the present complaint case has been filed in retaliation to the economic offence case being EO Case No. 17 of 2023 to save her skin from the said case, which was lodged by the petitioner against the opposite party no.2. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has been made a victim of a grave conspiracy hatched by those persons who were involved and had tried to blackmail the petitioner through various mobile numbers, which has been mentioned in the Economic Offence case registered by the petitioner. It has next been submitted that after due deliberation and consultation with the persons who are accused in the economic offence case the present complaint case was filed on 24.11.2023, while the economic offence case was registered on 17.11.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 7/14
12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has stated that one of the mobile numbers is in the name of Arusi (blackmailer) which was being used by the brother of the complainant, while other mobile on which the demand of ransom has been made is of the inquiry witnesses of the complaint case.
13. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement rendered in the case of Panchananda Jana vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata wherein she has referred to the paragraph 9 of the said judgment which is as under:
"Learned counsel has also placed reliance of a decision in the case of Ganesh Orang vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.1 to support CRA 248 of 2019 with CRAN 2 of 2021 (Old CRAN 2848 of 2019) 2025:CHC-AS:1589 his contention that place, time and circumstances under which alleged offence was committed by the petitioner are the essential parameters to be required to establish in order to prove even the prima facie prosecution case and, in the instant case, vital contradictions and inconsistencies are appearing on the face of records and, in such a situation, the Investigating Officer ought not to have been filed charge sheet against the petitioner. Only on such ground, the Revisional application can be allowed and charge Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 8/14 sheet should be quashed."
14. Learned Senior counsel, thus, submits that it was on completely vague averments regarding meeting of the opposite party no.2 with the petitioner at her village, without any specific date of the sexual exploitation being made the continuation of the criminal case would amount to the abuse of the process of law and it can not be set into motion as a matter of course and therefore, the petitioner should have been discharged in such case where the sole motive was to blackmail the petitioner and damage his reputation as a political leader and therefore, the order impugned is fit to be set aside.
15. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the application of the petitioner and has submitted that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that she has been exploited by the petitioner on various occasions for the last two years prior to the filing of the complaint case. It has further been submitted that most of the arguments forwarded by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner is by way of defence and therefore, at this juncture, the defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into. It has next been submitted that the scope of interference at the stage of discharge is very limited and it is a well settled law that the Court is only to prima facie Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 9/14 examine whether a case is being made out on the basis of the materials on record and the Court cannot examine the evidence minutely in order to discharge the accused-petitioner, thereby conducting a mini trial. It has, thus, been submitted that the present application is misconceived and is fit to be dismissed.
16. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, this Court finds that this was a complaint lodged by one Juli Kumar, who has stated her age to be 19 years in the complaint and has also stated that the occurrence started around two years ago and has been continuing till date. The complainant has, though, not stated any date but has given a very detailed description of how the accused had called the opposite party no.2 to Patna and started exploiting her sexually. The complaint contains the fact that the petitioner had promised her a job and thereafter he forcibly made physical relationship despite the fact that the complainant kept on crying.
17. The complainant/opposite party no.2 further disclosed that a video was also made containing explicit clips of the opposite party no.2, which was shown to her and she was blackmailed on that account with the threat that it would be made viral if she opposed the move of the petitioner. It has also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 10/14 been alleged in the complaint that the complainant/opposite party no.2 disclosed such a fact to her family and when her father talked to the petitioner, he was threatened with dire consequences. It has also been stated that the opposite party no.2 had also gone to the police station, however, the police had also asked her not to register the same and made her return, and thereafter the complaint was filed.
18. From perusal of such complaint as also the deposition of the inquiry witnesses, one thing is evident that it has been alleged that the petitioner had sexually exploited the complainant/opposite party no.2 and which also came to the knowledge of the inquiry witnesses.
19. From perusal of the complaint and the deposition of the inquiry witness, it is also apparent that serious allegations of sexual exploitation have been levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, from the records, it is clear that the complainant had brought on record the proof of her date of birth, which is stated to be 13.04.2004 and therefore, at the time of occurrence, she was about 17 years of age and therefore, the points raised on behalf of the petitioner that the victim was a major are not tenable, as the occurrence is stated to be two years prior to the filing of the complaint. This Court has found that the document Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 11/14 which was produced by the complainant was the mark sheet of the matriculation examination and as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Board Act, 2015 this is a document which needs to be considered while deciding the age of the victim.
20. As far as discharge of the petitioner on the ground of vague and baseless allegations is concerned, I have already observed hereinabove that there are explicit allegations of sexual abuse against the petitioner on several occasions, which has also been supported by the inquiry witnesses and even the allegations levelled by the complainant that she was being threatened by the petitioner is supported by the inquiry witnesses, therefore, for the purposes of discharge, if these allegations are taken into account, then there is enough material on record for conducting a trial against the petitioner wherein the defence of the petitioner shall be taken into account.
21. It is also a settled law that the determination of age can only be done through trial after taking evidence and therefore, any arguments contrary to the same cannot be looked into at this stage. It is also a settled law that the allegations of false implication on the ground of previous cases lodged against certain persons can also not be looked into at the stage of discharge. The documents produced by the accused, unless the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 12/14 same is impeachable so as to prove the innocence of the accused, then only the said document cannot be taken into account.
22. The contention raised by the learned Senior counsel with regard to the lack of exact date and time of the occurrence by the complainant/opposite party no.2 which has not been stated either in complaint or in her solemn affirmation statement, the same can also not demolish the entire prosecution case at the threshold. This Court has seen that in many cases involving sexual offences, particularly those against minors, there might be some degree of variance or lack of precision on the date and time and therefore, that in itself cannot be a ground for discharge, especially when the allegations are otherwise specific and consistent.
23. This Court finds that the defence taken by the petitioner pertains to disputed questions of age, which cannot be adjudicated in a process under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC, it has already been held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and moreover, the present case does not fall within any of the categories which have been defined in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 13/14 the paragraph '102' of the said judgment warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.
24. One more fact which this Court finds is that the complainant has not only alleged about sexual harassment at the hands of the petitioner in her complaint, but even during her solemn affirmation statement, she has categorically alleged about the conduct of the petitioner with details as to how she was physically abused and the petitioner had taken advantage of her and had also prepared a video clip which the complainant could lay her hand on. The statement is recorded under oath and the said statement has the same sanctity which is of a statement of victim made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C./183 of the BNSS, which is taken as a sacrosanct until the same is disbelieved after evidence in a full-fledged trial.
25. The present case is of a minor girl who has alleged sexual exploitation at the hands of the petitioner and there is video clip of one such sexual exploitation, the veracity of the same can only be judged during the course of Trial and therefore, discharging the petitioner at this stage merely relying upon his defence would not be proper.
26. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the materials on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39375 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026 14/14 record and has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the discharge petition and the said order does not suffer from any legal illegality or jurisdictional error warranting any interference.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner and primarily the matters raised by the petitioner are by way of defence, which can only be seen at the time of trial at an appropriate stage.
28. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 19.02.2026 Uploading Date 27.02.2026 Transmission Date 27.02.2026