Patna High Court
Gajendra Kumar ModiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the order refusing bail to the appellant is affirmed.
Summary
The appellant, Gajendra Kumar Modi, was charged under Sections 191(2), 126, 115(2) and 103 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged rape and murder of a victim. He appealed the Special Judge's refusal to grant regular bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that his name was added only on the basis of a co‑accused's confession, with no other material linking him to the crime. The State and the second respondent opposed bail, relying on the co‑accused's confession that all accused, including the appellant, participated in the offences. The High Court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidential record, declined to enlarge bail and affirmed the lower court's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the evidential material linking the appellant to the alleged rape and murder?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act given the nature of the offences.
- Whether the co‑accused's confession suffices to justify denial of bail to the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103, 115(2), 126, 191(2)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- murder
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- special judge
- appeal
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2353 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2024 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia
======================================================
Gajendra Kumar Modi S/O Bhola Modi Resident Of Village- Balutol
Durgapur, P.S.- Sarsi, District- Purnea
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manorma Devi W/O Akhlesh Rajak R/O Vill.- Kukron, Ward no. 7, P.s.-
Dhamdaha, Dist.- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Sita Ram Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Sita Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 07.03.2025
passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Purnea in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 296 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 01.12.2024 registered under Sections 191(2),
126, 115(2) and 103 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, this appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2353 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
along with other accused persons have committed rape upon the
victim one by one and killed her by strangulating her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
appellant was not named in the FIR and his name has been
transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of the co-accused and except the aforesaid, no other
cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the appellant in the present occurrence. The
allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the
appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of
material available on record and the case diary have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that the
co-accused has confessed his guilt that he along with other
accused persons including the appellant have committed rape
upon the victim and thereafter, they have killed the victim. The
bail application of the co-accused, namely, Dablu Yadav @
Dablu Kumar has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Cr. App. (SJ) No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2353 of 2025(7) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
2086 of 2025.
6. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in
the FIR as well as the investigation, I am not inclined to enlarge
the appellant on bail in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case
No. 296 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Purnea.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed and
this appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…