Patna High Court
Dilkhush KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the refusal of bail under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act is affirmed.
Summary
The appellant, Dilkhush Kumar, was charged with raping a minor girl under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016. The FIR, filed on 3 September 2025, alleged the offence occurred on 25 January 2025, showing a nine‑month delay. The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023, and a medical report confirming pregnancy and her age as about 17, supported the prosecution’s case. The appellant sought regular bail under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act, claiming a clean record and that the FIR was fabricated to force a marriage. The Special Judge refused bail, and the appellant appealed. The Patna High Court, after considering the victim’s testimony, medical evidence, and the seriousness of the offence, upheld the lower court’s refusal of bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act in granting regular bail to an accused charged with rape of a minor?
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged motive affect the bail decision under the SC/ST Act.
Subjects
- rape
- minor victim
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- regular bail
- Section 14(A)(ii)
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.271 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- SARSI District- Purnia
======================================================
Dilkhush Kumar Son of Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav Resident of
Village- Bahora PS- Sarsi District -Purnea
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pato Kumari Daughter of Shukdeo Paswan Resident of Village- Bahora
Fatak, Wad no. 09, PS- Sarsi District -Purnea
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-04-2026 Heard Mr.Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Mr.Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the
State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for regular bail vide order
dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.1st-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Purnea in Spl. SC/ST. Case No.156
of 2025 arising out of Sarsi P.S. Case No.174/2025, F.I.R. dated
04.09.2025 registered under Sections 64(1)of BNS and Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.271 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
3(1)(w)(i)(ii),3(2)(v)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Allegation against the appellant is that he
committed rape upon the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the appellant has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. Further submits that from a
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as
alleged in the FIR is 25.01.2025 but the present FIR has been
instituted on 03.09.2025 after delay of about 09 months without
giving any explanation of delay only to pressurize the appellant
to perform the marriage with the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned Spl.
P.P. for the State, on the basis of the material available on the
record and the case diary, have vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail of the appellant and submits that the statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which
she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and she has
stated that the appellant has committed rape upon her, apart
from that, the medical report of the victim suggests that on the
date of the medical examination she was pregnant and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.271 of 2026(3) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
Doctor has assessed the age of the victim is about 17 years
which suggests that on the date of occurrence the victim was
minor.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, victim has supported the case of the prosecution, apart
from that, the medical report also confirms the allegation as
alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on
bail in connection with Spl. SC/ST. Case No.156 of 2025 arising
out of Sarsi P.S. Case No.174/2025 pending in the court of
learned A.D.J.1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Purnea.
7. Prayer is refused.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed and
this appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…