Patna High Court
Dablu KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the allegations, on account of procedural delays, lack of medical evidence, and the petitioner’s clean record.
Summary
Petitioner Dablu Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he and a co-accused forcibly took a minor girl to a house and raped her, offences charged under Sections 65(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner filed an application for regular bail, contending that he is innocent, the FIR was lodged 15 days after the alleged incident, there is no medical evidence, the victim was near the age of majority, and a counter‑complaint filed by his mother indicates a motive to pressure him. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the rape allegation. The Court considered the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical proof, the lack of prior criminal record, and the existence of a counter‑complaint, and decided to grant bail on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties. The application for bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case of alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the 15‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of medical evidence justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the filing of a counter‑complaint by the petitioner’s mother impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (B.N.S.) Act — s. 3(5), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape of minor
- FIR delay
- counter‑complaint
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14962 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Dablu Kumar S/O Parmeshwar Pandit Resident Of Village- Ghughura, P.S.-
Sonbarsa, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. XX W/O YY Resident Of Village- Ghughura, P.S.- Sonbarsa, Dist.-
Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv
: Mr.Mahendra Thakur, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Devendra Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. no 2.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.
213 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 65(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S and section 4/6 of the POCSO
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, it has been alleged that
on 01.07.2025 at about 10:00 P.M., petitioner and co-accused
Shivam Kumar forcibly took the informant’s minor daughter to
the house of co-accused Shivam Kumar, and committed rape
upon her and threatened with dire consequences.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14962 of 2026(5) dt.11-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there is a delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR. It has further been
submitted that the present case is nothing but counterblast and to
save the skin and put pressure upon the petitioner. It has further
been submitted that the victim was on the verge of majority, as
she was aged about 16 to 18 years. Mother of the petitioner has
filed a case bearing Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 210 of 2025 for the
offences punishable under Section 126(2), 115, 117, 74, 303(2),
352, 351(2), 3(5) against the prosecution party and it has further
been submitted that the said case was filed on 15.07.2025 and
on the next date the present case came to be lodged. It has
further been submitted referring to 183 BNSS statement that the
petitioner and co-accused Shivam Kumar as well as the victim
were apprehended from the hut by the local people, wherein the
offence was allegedly been committed with the victim but no
FIR was lodged for more than 15 days which casts a serious
doubt on the bonafide of accusations levelled. it has further been
submitted that there is no medical evidence to suggest allegation
of rape. It has further been submitted that statement of victim
does not inspire confidence, chargesheet has been submitted,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14962 of 2026(5) dt.11-05-2026
3/3
and there is no allegation of tampering against the petitioner. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal
antecedent and is in custody since 21.01.2026
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is direct
allegation of rape against the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstance of the
case, let the petitioner above-named, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Court concerned, in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case
No. 213 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
niku/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.