Patna High Court
Jitendra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, Jitendra Prasad and Pawan Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a rape case (Bairiya PS Case No. 201 of 2025) alleged under Sections 74, 64, 126(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. They contended that the complaint was filed after an undue delay of over four months, that the allegations were false and stemmed from a land‑dispute, and that there was no injury report or other evidence against them, nor any criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners were powerful, that the police were complicit, and that the delay should not prejudice the prosecution. The Court, noting the delayed filing, lack of substantive evidence, and the petitioners’ clean record, exercised its power under Section 482 of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including surety, presence in court, and verification of antecedents. The order clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a rape case where the complaint was filed after a delay of more than four months
- Whether the absence of an injury report and lack of substantive evidence justify granting bail
- Whether the petitioners' claim of false implication and absence of criminal antecedent warrant bail
- Whether Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail in such circumstances
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 118(1), 126(2), 482, 64, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- delay in filing
- false implication
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2524 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Jitendra Prasad Son of Late Jagnath Prasad Resident of village- Dumariya
PS -Bairiya District -West Champaran
2. Pawan Kumar @ Pavan Kumar son of Late Lagan Prasad Resident of
village- Dumariya PS -Bairiya District -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, informant
and the learned APP on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025
dated 29.05.2025 instituted for the offences punishable under
Sections 74, 64, 126(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, allegation against the
petitioners is that they entered into the house of the informant
and committed rape upon her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present case has been lodged on the basis of a complaint petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2524 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
filed on 05.01.2025 which was registered as Bairiya P.S. Case
No. 201 of 2025. It has been submitted that from perusal of the
complaint it would be evident that the alleged date of
occurrence is said to be 05.01.2025, however the complaint was
filed on 13.05.2025 with a statement that initially the police was
informed, but they were in connivance with the petitioners and
hence the case could not be lodged earlier.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioners and the informant are immediate agnates and
they have falsely been implicated in this case merely to settle
personal score which arose on account of land dispute. It is next
submitted that no explanation whatsoever has been given with
regard to the delayed filing of the complaint initially and during
the investigation barring the statement of the informant, there is
nothing on record to suggest any evidence against the
petitioners. It has also been submitted that no injury report is
referred to by the learned Special Judge while dismissing the
application for bail. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State have vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2524 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
have submitted that the petitioners are very powerful and they in
connivance with the police did not let an FIR be lodged in the
present matter on the date of occurrence and ultimately after
several complaints the present complaint was filed on
13.05.2025. It is further submitted that there was an assault on
05.01.2025 for which the informant had gone for treatment at
the hospital, however they do not dispute the fact that no
reference of any rape is there in the said prescription of
05.01.2025.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the background facts of the case and especially the
fact that the case of such heinous nature has been lodged after a
delay of more than four months, the petitioners are directed to
be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on their
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in
connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 of the BNSS and
subject to the following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2524 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioners;
(ii) the petitioners will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the Court below, if so required by the
learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the
petitioners will liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found
that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the
court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the
petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of
the above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of
the same on in the name of verification.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…