Rakesh Patel @ Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35859 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2015 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Rakesh Patel @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Beer Bahadur Patel Resident of Village -
                 Raushanpur Sapaha, P.s. - Sugali, District - East Champaran, Bihar.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XX Wife of YY R/o Village - Raushanpur Sapaha, P.S. - Sugauli, Dist. - East
                 Champaran(Bihar).

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   27-05-2026                         Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   the learned APP for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in

                   connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 469 of 2015, for

                   allegedly having committed offence under Sections 341, 323,

                   324, 307, 376D, 363 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with

                   Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

                                   3. As per the prosecution story, which has been

                   lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the

                   informant to the effect that on 11.12.2025 at about 12:00 o’clock

                   in the afternoon, her minor daughter went for school but did not

                   return till late evening. On inquiry, she got information from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35859 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
                                            2/4




          villagers that her minor daughter was seen at Semra, then she

          along with some villagers reached there. Upon being asked, the

          minor daughter of the informant told her that the petitioner,

          including two other co-accused persons had kidnapped her, by

          giving biscuit and after eating the same, she became

          unconscious. It was further alleged that when she regained

          consciousness, she found that her clothes are not on her body

          and the petitioner along with other co-accused have committed

          rape with her. When the informant went to the house of the

          accused persons to inquire about the incident, she was

          physically assaulted, due to which she sustained injuries.

                          4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

          that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any

          offence. He further submits that the occurrence is of 11.12.2015,

          but the first information report was lodged on 13.12.2015,

          however no explanation whatsoever has been given for the

          delay of two days. He further submits that since the petitioner

          resides in the same locality and only to settle previous dispute,

          the name of the petitioner has been taken in the instant case. He

          submits that the daughter of the informant remained in the

          sugarcane field for two days, however she did not raise any

          alarm, so that any passer-by can hear her sound. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35859 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
                                            3/4




          submits that the petitioner is a young student and preparing for

          various competitive examinations. The petitioner had got no

          knowledge with regard to the institution of the present case and

          he came to know about his implication only in the month of

          January 2026, through the local chaukidar. Immediately

          thereafter, the petitioner made enquiry about the matter and

          obtained information with regard to the present case and filed

          the anticipatory bail before the District Court, which was

          rejected.

                          5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State

          vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

          submits that the First Information Report was lodged in 2015

          and the allegations leveled against the petitioner are heinous,

          therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail

          in the present case.

                       6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going

          through the records, it appears that the First Information Report

          was lodged in 2015. As per the statement made by the petitioner

          in paragraph no. 13 of the present petition it appears that he

          came to know about the pendency of the present case only in the

          month of January 2026. However, from the records available on

          the website of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, it appears that the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35859 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
                                                       4/4




                     petitioner along with other five accused persons had earlier filed

                     Criminal Writ Petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No. 1126 of 2016,

                     which was disposed of as being infructuous, vide order dated

                     23.08.2018 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court,

                     since charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and

                     others. It appears that the petitioner has not approached this

                     Hon’ble Court with a clean hand and further, the matter is of

                     2015 and the petitioner remained an absconder for all these

                     eleven years. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

                     petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                     Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.



                                                 (Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Mridula/-

U      T