Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court denied bail, finding no new ground to justify its grant at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Utkarsh Raj, was charged under IPC sections 376(D) (rape), 120(B) and 34 (conspiracy and common intention), and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6 for alleged sexual offences against a minor. He has been in judicial custody since September 27, 2023 and has filed a third bail application after two earlier rejections. The trial report indicated that all prosecution witnesses, except the investigating officer, had been examined and the trial was expected to conclude within three months. The petitioner argued lack of criminal antecedent and that the charge sheet and framing were already completed. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the advanced stage of the trial and absence of any new ground for relief. The court held that there was no fresh basis to grant bail and rejected the petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within a month.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused at an advanced stage of trial for offences under IPC 376(D), 120(B)/34 and POCSO Act 4/6.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 376(D)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- rape
- criminal conspiracy
- POCSO
- trial stage
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64256 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-796 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
Bhagalpur
======================================================
Utkarsh Raj @ Rider @ Utkarsh Kumar @ Raider S/O Neeraj Singh @
Neeraj Bihari @ Niraj Nishi Resident Of Karba Gola Ghat Road, Naya Bazar,
Near Hindustan Club, P.s.- Tatarpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. MS. X D/O Mr. Y R/O Vill.- Kamal Nagar Colony, Mirzanhat, P.S.-
Babarganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Kotwali (Jogsar) P.S. Case No. 796 of 2023, instituted for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 120(BO)/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3. This is the third attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 14.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83379 of
2023 and was also rejected by this Bench vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64256 of 2025(7) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
25.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4823 of 2025 taking into
account the stage of the case.
4. In compliance of the order dated 08.09.2025, a
report dated 12.09.2025 with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that all the prosecution witnesses have examined except
I.O. It is further reported that the trial is likely to be concluded
within a period of three months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 27.09.2023
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent. It is next submitted that charge-sheet has already
been submitted in this case and charge has also been framed
against the petitioner on 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that
on perusal of the report, it transpires that except I.O. all the
prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case but,
subsequently, the I.O. has already been examined in this case.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64256 of 2025(7) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a
period of one months from today.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…