Patna High Court
Chaman Kumar Chaudhary @ Amarendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the order refusing regular bail is affirmed.
Summary
Chaman Kumar Chaudhary appealed against the refusal of regular bail in a case where he was accused of entering the victim's house, raping her and assaulting her with a scythe. The prosecution alleged the victim, Manisha Kumari, was a minor aged between 14 and 17, as per the medical board report, and her statement under Section 183 supported the charges. The appellant argued he had a clean antecedent, was falsely implicated, and highlighted a five‑day delay in filing the FIR without explanation. The High Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the victim's minority, and the medical evidence, and found no justification to enlarge bail. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's order refusing bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a rape case involving a minor under the SC/ST (POA) Act and BNS, 2023.
- Whether the five‑day delay in filing the FIR warrants a bail consideration.
- Whether the appellant's clean antecedent and claim of false implication outweigh the prosecution's evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126, 127(2), 183, 351(3), 352, 64, 79
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r)(s), 3(i)(w)(ii)
Subjects
- regular bail
- rape
- minor victim
- SC/ST Act
- criminal appeal
- bail refusal
- medical evidence
- FIR delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1109 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Chaman Kumar Chaudhary @ Amarendra Kumar S/O Manoj Chaudhary R/O
Village- Baghari, Ward no 07, P.S- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manisha Kumari D/O Ravindra Ram R/O Village- Baghari, P.S-
Runnisaidpur, Distt- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 25-06-2026 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on
behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
2. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
for the appellant as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P.
for the State.
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 05.02.2026
passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection
with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, F.I.R. dated
07.01.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 126, 127(2), 64,
352, 351(3) and 79 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(i)(r)(s) and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1109 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
3(i)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, this appellant
entered into the house of the victim and dragged her to
Banswari and committed rape upon her and also assaulted her
by means of Scythe.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Apart from aforesaid, the date of
occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 02.01.2026 but the present
FIR has been instituted on 07.01.2026 after delay of 5 days
without giving any explanation of the said delay only to falsely
implicate the appellant in the present case.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State on
the basis of material available on record and the case diary has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that the victim was recovered and statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 in
which she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and as
far as medical report is concerned, the Medical Board has only
verified the age of the victim and suggested that the victim was
between 14 to 17 years of age which means she was minor at
the time of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1109 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
7. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in
the FIR supported by the medical evidence, I am not inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Runnisaidpur
P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Sitamarhi.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed and
this appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.