Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar @ Chandan BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging that on 30 August 2025 he, armed with a pistol and sword, entered the informant's house and attempted to rape her. The prosecution charged him under several sections of the B.N.S. and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, indicating serious offences. The petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents, and alleged false implication. The State and the informant opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and grave nature of the accusations. Considering the seriousness, specificity of the charges, and the alleged use of a weapon, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the serious nature of the offences alleged under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act
- Whether the specific accusations and alleged use of a weapon justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- POCSO
- criminal law
- bail
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2592 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2025 Thana- SHEOHAR District- Sheohar
======================================================
Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Bhagat S/O Fekan Bhagat R/O vill.- Pardeshiya,
P.s.- Sheohar, Dist.- Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/O Y R/O vill.- Pardeshiya, P.s.- Sheohar, Dist.- Sheohar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 329(4), 76 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 12
of the POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on
30.08.2025 at about 8 PM, this petitioner, along with other
F.I.R. named accused persons, equipped with pistol and sword,
entered into house of informant and tried to commit rape upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2592 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/2
her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is
specific accusation that this petitioner, along with other co-
accused persons, taking advantage of absence of family
members of the informant, forcibly entered into house of
informant and tried to commit rape upon her on the point of
pistol.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…