Patna High Court
Subodh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; bail is not granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Subodh Kumar, appealed against the order of the District and Additional Sessions Judge that denied his bail in a case involving alleged gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(D)/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co‑accused dragged the victim into a hut, raped her, recorded the act, and threatened to circulate the video, while the defence claimed the appellant was falsely implicated and highlighted a five‑day delay in filing the FIR. The appellant argued that he had been in custody since January 2022, no witnesses had been examined, and the delay in the FIR was unexplained, seeking bail on these grounds. The State contended that the FIR explained the delay due to threats and that the allegations were grave, justifying denial of bail. The High Court held that the allegations were serious, the victim’s explanation for the FIR delay was prima facie plausible, and the appellant’s prolonged custody without trial progress did not warrant bail, especially after two earlier bail refusals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and directions were issued to expedite the trial and ensure witness presence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant in a case of alleged gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(D)/34 IPC and SC/ST Act 3(2)(v).
- Whether the five‑day delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for bail.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial custody without substantive trial progress justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376(D)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- gang rape
- criminal intimidation
- SC/ST Act
- delay in FIR
- pre‑trial custody
- trial expeditiousness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2746 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Subodh Kumar S/O Mahendra Ram Resident of Village- Kuavamal, P.S.-
Rajepur, District- East Champaran, Motihari. Through the natural guardian
Mahendra Ram, S/O Late Suman Ram, R/O Village- Kuavamal, P.S- Rajepur,
Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rupam Kumari D/O Damal Ram R/O Village- Balakothi, P.S- Rajepur,
Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children’s
Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Children Trial No. 01 of
2025, arising out of Rajepur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D)/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act,
whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, six named accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2746 of 2025(4) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
persons, along with the appellant, allegedly dragged the
informant into a hut where the appellant and co-accused Vikky
Kumar committed rape upon her, while the remaining accused
persons recorded the incident by preparing a video clip. It has
further been alleged that, even prior to the occurrence, the
appellant and the other accused persons used to tease and harass
the informant. The accused persons also allegedly threatened the
victim that in the event she disclosed the occurrence to anyone,
they would make the obscene video viral.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the earlier prayer for
bail of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 18.04.2023
passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3833 of 2022 as well as vide order
dated 19.07.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 5349 of 2023.
However, the appellant is renewing his prayer for bail on the
ground that he is in observation home since 15.01.2022, charge
has already been framed against him on 13.10.2022, and not a
single witness has been examined so far. It is further submitted
on behalf of the appellant that there is a delay of five days in
lodging the FIR and there is no proper explanation for the same.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2746 of 2025(4) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the delay in
lodging the FIR has been properly explained in the FIR itself,
wherein it has been stated that due to threats extended by the
accused persons, the victim could not approach the police
immediately. It is further submitted that the allegations against
the appellant are nonetheless grave and serious in nature,
warranting no interference in the impugned order.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and the
materials on record, this Court finds that the allegations against
the appellant are of serious nature involving gang rape and
criminal intimidation. The victim’s explanation for delay in
lodging the FIR prima facie appears plausible in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The fact that the appellant has
remained in custody since 15.01.2022 and that the trial has not
substantially progressed cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a
case involving such serious allegations, particularly when earlier
bail applications have already been rejected twice.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated
07.04.2025 passed by the learned court below.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
9. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2746 of 2025(4) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
Motihari is directed to ensure the presence of witnesses during
the trial so that the proceedings are not delayed.
10. The learned trial court is further directed to
expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude it at the
earliest preferably within a reasonable time without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either party and by hearing the
case on a day-to-day basis.
11. It is made clear that any observation made herein
is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.