Patna High Court
Ram Lakhan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, dismissing the petitioner's application.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Lakhan Singh, was charged under IPC section 376DA, IT Act section 67, and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6 for allegedly raping a minor and recording a video. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and that he was not named in the FIR, while the State argued that the victim identified him and a medical board confirmed evidence of intercourse with a victim aged 18. An earlier bail application had been rejected, and the petitioner highlighted that none of the seven prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court, emphasizing the heinous nature of the allegations and the evidence presented by the prosecution, declined to grant bail and ordered the trial to be expedited. The order also directed the police to ensure witness attendance and clarified that its observations were prima facie and not a determination on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused under IPC 376DA, IT Act 67, and POCSO Act 4 & 6.
- Whether the victim's identification of the petitioner and medical evidence justify denial of bail.
- Whether the delay in examination of prosecution witnesses impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376DA
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- regular bail
- rape
- POCSO
- IT Act
- heinous offence
- trial expeditious
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26146 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2023 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran
======================================================
Ram Lakhan Singh Son of Bhagirath Singh R/o Village - Korea, P.S. - Khaira,
District – Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. XXX W/o YYY R/o Village - Korea, P.S. - Khaira, District - Saran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Chetna, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Khaira P.S. Case No. 490 of 2023, registered under Sections
376DA of Indian Penal Code, section 67 of the I.T. Act and
section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was
rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
22.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47203 of 2024 which reads
as under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred
this application for grant of regular bail
in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No.
490 of 2023 dated 24.12.2023 registered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26146 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
for the offence/s punishable u/s 376 DA of
the Indian Penal Code, sections 4 and 6 of
the POCSO Act and section 67 of the I.T.
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case,
the co-accused persons are alleged to
have committed rape on the informant's
grand- daughter and made a video of it
and threatened to make the same viral.
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case. The petitioner is
not named in the F.I.R. There was love
affair between the victim and one co-
accused Mithilesh Kumar. The bail of the
similar situated co-accused, namely,
Rajan Kumar has already been rejected by
this court vide order dated 01.05.2024
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31343 of 2024.
The petitioner has one antecedent as
stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The
petitioner is in custody since 29.12.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State
has vehemently opposed the bail petition
of the petitioner and submitted that the
victim has disclosed the name of the
petitioner in her statement recorded u/s
161 and 164 of the Cr. P.C. It is further
submitted that the medical board assessed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26146 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
the age of the victim as 18 years. It is
further submitted that the medical board
reveals that there is strong evidence of
intercourse with the victim within five to
seven days.
6. Considering the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the heinous nature of allegation
against the petitioner, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Learned Trial Court is
directed to expedite the trial and conclude
the same preferably at the earliest.
8. The application stands
rejected.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed on 10.09.2025 but none of the seven
prosecution witnesses have been examined in the court below
till 26.02.2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, this application is
dismissed.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Saran is directed to
ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26146 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
learned Special Judge, POCSO, Saran, Chapra is directed to
expedite the trial at the earliest.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra through FAX for its
forthwith compliance.
9. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…