Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ RahulversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was refused.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging that, as a driver of the informant, he secretly recorded pornographic videos of the informant and her minor daughter, blackmailed them, forced sexual relations, attempted molestation, and stole money and jewellery. The petitioner contended he was merely a gym member, not the informant's driver, and denied all allegations, claiming a clean record. The State and the informant opposed his anticipatory bail, citing specific accusations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, with the informant's daughter supporting the prosecution. The court examined the seriousness of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence. Considering the gravity of the offences, the court refused the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the nature and seriousness of the accusations warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352, 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual assault
- blackmail
- child protection
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- theft
- video recording
- bail refusal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3451 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-624 Year-2025 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul S/O Sanjay Kumar Mandal @ Sanjay Mandal R/O
Village- Prahlad Nagar, P.S.- Nalanda, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anamika Kumari W/O Rakesh Kumar R/O Mangalam Mansion, Aadarsh
Path, Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Vivek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant
and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Shastri Nagar P. S.
Case No. 624 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 64 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8, 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act.
3. As per F.I.R., this petitioner, being driver of the
informant, secretly recorded objectionable videos of informant
and her minor daughter and started blackmailing them. It is
further alleged that petitioner forcibly established physical
relation with the informant by threatening her to make the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3451 of 2026(6) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
videos viral. On 15.08.2025, petitioner again tried to molest
informant and upon protest, this petitioner committed theft of
Rs. 15,000/- and jewellery worth Rs. 50,000/- from the house of
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner
has never worked as the driver of informant. As a matter of fact,
informant runs a gym in the name and style ‘Cross fit Gym’
where she is also a trainer. Petitioner had taken admission in the
said gym and later on, both petitioner and informant became
close to each other. Thereafter, they had taken a commercial
premises on rent for running other gym in which petitioner
bought some gym equipments and invested Rs. 50,000/- in the
business. It is further submitted that informant is living
separately from her husband from ten years and wanted to marry
petitioner but when petitioner refused the proposal, this false
and concocted case was lodged against him. Petitioner claims
clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail
application and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he sexually assaulted informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3451 of 2026(6) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
and made objectionable videos of informant and her daughter.
During investigation, daughter of the informant also supported
the prosecution case.
6. Considering the nature and seriousness of
accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
refused.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.