Patna High Court
Ranjit SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Singh, was named in an FIR for alleged rape of a girl aged about 15, under Sections 65(1) and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged three months after the alleged incident to settle a local dispute, denied the occurrence, and argued that the victim was actually a major (18‑19 years) as per a medical board report, rendering the charge untenable; he also sought DNA testing to prove non‑paternity. The State opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing the victim’s consistent statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. and the seriousness of the allegations. The court held that the allegations of rape were specifically made against the petitioner and were corroborated by the victim’s statements, making the anticipatory bail request untenable. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of rape under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the disputed age of the victim affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the DNA test to establish paternity is relevant to the anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 180, 183, 351(2), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- POCSO Act
- age of consent
- delay in FIR
- DNA test
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35317 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran
======================================================
Ranjit Singh son of Ram Paras Singh Village- Anhara, Chapra, Ps-
Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. 'X', Daughter of Manoj sahni Daughter of Manoj Sahni Village-
Anhara, Chapra, Po- Rajpur, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No. 16 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 65(1) and 351(2), of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’) and section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioner, who is aged about 50 years,
committed rape upon the informant aged about 15 years on
24.12.2025, somewhere between 7:00 to 8:00 P.M., while
she went to a nearby field as to attend the call of nature.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35317 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
petitioner submitted that the present FIR was lodged with a
delay of about three months as same was lodged on
08.03.2025 as an afterthought to implicate the petitioner due
to local dispute and differences. It is submitted that
occurrence is totally denied by the petitioner and the child, as
alleged to be born out of said occurrence, is not of this
petitioner which may get confirmed by DNA report only. It is
pointed out that upon medical board examination, the age of
victim/informant was found between 18 to 19 years and,
therefore, at the time of occurrence, she was major.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
victim/informant herself, while authoring the FIR, raised
specific allegation against this petitioner as to commit rape
upon her while she went on the date of occurrence to attend
the call of nature. It is pointed out that the same fact also
appears stated with full of consistency while recording
statement under section 180 & 183 of the B.N.S.S. during
course of investigation. It is pointed out that victim maintains
her silence after the occurrence out of social and family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35317 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
trauma and when she started to face some physical problem,
when she found pregnant on medical check-up thereafter the
occurrence was reported to the police by her that this
petitioner had committed rape upon her on the date of
occurrence, thereafter, the present FIR was lodged.
6. It is obvious that the present proceeding is not to
determine the paternity of the child whether it was born with
this petitioner or anyone else and therefore the desired DNA
report, as called for, is of no relevancy.
7. As the allegation qua rape appears specifically
available against the petitioner, which further corroborated
with statement of victim/informant while recording statement
under section 180 & 183 of the B.N.S.S. as discussed
aforesaid, accordingly, present prayer of anticipatory bail of
the petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…