Patna High Court
Srikant Rai @ Srikant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, dismissing the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Srikant Rai, was named in an FIR alleging offences under several IPC sections and the POCSO Act, including alleged rape and conspiracy. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming the FIR was filed maliciously and that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC did not name him. The State opposed, noting the petitioner had been absconding since 2020 and that a process under Section 82 of the CrPC had already been issued, while other co‑accused had been granted regular bail. The Court observed the petitioner’s continued evasion, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the victim’s statement, and therefore refused anticipatory bail. However, the Court conditionally allowed the petitioner to seek bail if he surrenders within four weeks, after which the matter would be considered on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an accused who is absconding and against whom a process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the same basis as co‑accused who have already been released on regular bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164, 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 364, 376(DA), 511
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- absconding accused
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 164 CrPC
- POCSO Act
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16407 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Srikant Rai @ Srikant Kumar S/O Laulin Rai @ Ramlolin Ray @ Laulin Roy
Resident of village- Simri Alampur, Police Station- Vidyapatinagar, District-
Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. XXX D/O Ram Kumar Sah Resident of village- Simri, Police Station-
Vidyapatinagar, District- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The
informant is represented through learned Advocate Mr. Amit
Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 67 of 2020, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 149,, 364,
376(DA) & 511 of the I.P.C. and Sections 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 4,
6 & 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Based upon the complaint, the present FIR came to
be instituted with an allegation that on 19.05.2020 all the
accused persons named in F.I.R, including the petitioner, came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16407 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
to the house of the informant with various arms and brutally
assaulted, misbehaved and outraged the modesty and tried to
commit rape on her. It is also alleged that prior to the said
incident on 10.04.2020 the accused persons have committed
rape upon the younger sister of the informant. While the
informant was going to hospital for medical examination, the
accused persons also forcibly confined her and did not allow for
medical check up in order to destroy the evidence.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
since there is a long standing dispute between the parties, the
present FIR came to be instituted maliciously. The alleged
occurrence is said to have taken place on 19.05.2020, however,
the complaint case was lodged on 18.06.2020 in the POCSO
Court from where it has been sent to the concerned police
station. Earlier on 13.04.2021 a complaint was also filed by
younger sister of the informant alleging that on account of
dispute of grazing of her goat on 10.04.2020, she was beaten by
the co-accused persons. This was the reason for filing of false
complaint case by implicating the name of all the persons with
whom she had animosity. There is no medical report to
corroborate the allegation and all the more, the statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., where she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16407 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
has not even taken the name of the petitioner as a culprit. It is
lastly contended that some of the co-accused persons facing
identical allegation have been allowed the privilege of regular
bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39563 of 2021 by the order
dated 04.08.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
and the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and
submits that the FIR was instituted long back in the year 2020
and the petitioner has been evading his arrest irrespective of the
fact that he is named accused. Since the petitioner was
absconding his arrest, on 03.02.2026 process under Section 82
of the Cr.P.C. has also been issued is the contention of the
learned Advocate for the informant. It is lastly contended that,
be that as it may, other accused persons have been allowed the
privilege of a regular bail. Hence, the petitioner should also
approach before Jurisdictional Court for grant of regular bail.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that the petitioner remains absconded since the
institution of the FIR in the year 2020 and he has approached
this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing the present
application on 28.02.2026 besides the fact that process under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16407 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been issued and the other
accused persons have been accorded the privilege of regular
bail, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the petitioner.
7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the
Jurisdictional Court within a period of four weeks from today,
his prayer for bail shall be considered without being prejudice
by the order of this Court and taking note of the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the
delay in lodging of the complaint/FIR and he is carrying fair
antecedent.
8. With the aforesaid observation the present
application stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.