Patna High Court
Tarun Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's bail application, holding that bail should not be granted at this stage in a serious offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Tarun Kumar Singh, sought regular bail in a case (Ekma P.S. Case No. 508 of 2023) involving an alleged offence under Section 363 of the IPC, with the prosecution alleging rape of a minor. The victim initially gave a statement under Section 161 CrPC indicating a consensual relationship, but later, under Section 164 CrPC, alleged forcible sexual intercourse and was found to be pregnant. The petitioner argued that the later statement was made under duress, that he has no criminal antecedent, and that the earlier statement should be considered. The State highlighted the seriousness of the offence, the victim’s medical report confirming pregnancy, and reliance on the Apex Court’s pronouncement that bail in serious offences should be denied once trial commences. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, allowing the petitioner to renew the application after six months or after the victim’s testimony, whichever occurs first.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a serious offence (rape/kidnapping) when the trial is underway.
- Whether statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC can be used to assess the accused's innocence.
- Whether the presence of a minor victim and her pregnancy affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the precedent set in X v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- kidnapping
- minor victim
- Section 363 IPC
- Section 376 IPC
- CrPC Section 161
- CrPC Section 164
- medical examination
- pregnancy
- high court
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13588 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2023 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
Tarun Kumar Singh S/O Dharmendra Chaudhary R/O Village- Sindhiya
Makandpur P.S- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Ravi Kumar S/O Harinam Singh R/O Vill.- KOhargadh, P.S- Ekma, Dist-
Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Chetna, Advocate
For the Informant/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate
Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 508 of 2023 instituted for
the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor
daughter of the informant had gone missing. It is also alleged
that the victim was in regular talking terms on a Mobile No.
XXXXX38978.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that earlier bail petition of the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 25.02.25. passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70261 of 2024
by a learned coordinate Bench of this court. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. It is further submitted that during course of
investigation, victim has given her statement under sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.,
she stated that she was having an affair with the petitioner and
she had gone with him. However, in her statement under
section 164 Cr.P.C., she took a U-turn and has stated that the
petitioner had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of
the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. was her previous
statement whereas the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was
made under the duress and influence of her parents. A
statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the
petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is languishing in
judicial custody since 22.03.2024.
5. During the course of investigation, medical
examination of the victim was conducted and from perusal of
the medical examination report, it is clear that the Doctor who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
conducted medical examination of the victim opined that the
age of the victim is between 18-20 years and that she was
pregnant at that time. It is further submitted that she has since
given birth to a baby.
6. Countering the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant has
vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that it is a case of
rape with a minor girl and the trial is in progress. It is further
stated that in this case only one witness has been examined. On
being specifically asked, learned counsel submitted that the
victim has been examined during the trial and has not
supported the case of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel has further relied upon paragraph
‘14’ of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of
X v. State of Rajasthan which is being given hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case as
stated above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13588 of 2026(4) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
rejected.
9. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months in the event that the trial is
not concluded by then or after the examination of the victim if
she supports the case of the petitioner whichever is earlier.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.