Patna High Court
Dhrup Sahni @ Dhrup Kumar @ Dhrup SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court refused bail, holding that the seriousness of the rape allegation and the victim’s corroborated testimony outweigh the petitioner’s arguments, though it allowed a renewal of the bail application if the prosecution does not examine the remaining witnesses within the stipulated period.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhrup Sahni, was arrested in connection with a rape allegation under multiple sections of the BNS, 2023, the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. He sought bail, arguing that the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, there was prior enmity between the parties, and the medical report showed no signs of recent sexual assault. The State opposed bail, contending that the victim’s statements under Section 183 of the BNS and her testimony during trial, along with the examination of two prosecution witnesses, substantiated the charges. The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s consistent testimony, and the pending examination of two remaining witnesses. It declined to grant bail but permitted the petitioner to renew his bail application if the prosecution fails to examine the remaining witnesses within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR justifies granting bail in a rape case
- Whether the absence of medical evidence of recent sexual assault warrants bail
- Whether the pending examination of prosecution witnesses affects the bail decision
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 183, 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 65(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376
- POCSO Act
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- sexual assault
- delay in FIR
- medical report
- witness examination
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58889 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Dhrup Sahni @ Dhrup Kumar @ Dhrup Sahani Son of Gara Sahni R/o
Village - Senvariya, Ward no. 16, P.S - Majhauliya, Dist. - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gayatri Devi Wife of Raj Kishore Sahni R/o Village - Senvariya, Ward no.
16, P.S - Majhauliya, Dist. - West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
7 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Majhauliya P.S. Case no.156 of
2025 registered under section 329(3), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2),
65(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that petitioner committed
rape with the informant’s daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
F.I.R itself has been lodged after a delay of three days, for which
no explanation has been tendered. It is further submitted that
both the parties have prior enmity and a simple case of physical
altercation has been given colour of sexual assault and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58889 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
provisions of Section 376 and the POCSO Act, has been
maliciously inserted. It has also been submitted that the doctor
has not find any sign of recent sexual assault, which is evident
from the medical report. The petitioner is in custody since
20.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedent. He undertakes to
cooperate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2. on the ground that there is a direct allegation against the
petitioner, which is supported by the victim not only in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS but also
during the trial. Both the informant and the victim have been
examined as prosecution witnesses and both have supported the
case of the prosecution. Learned APP for the State has further
submitted that, out of four witnesses, two have already been
examined and the informant undertakes to have the remaining
witnesses examined within a period of three months.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of
allegations being supported by victim during trial and
considering the fact that only two witnesses need to be
examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58889 of 2025(7) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew
his prayer of bail, in case the prosecution witnesses are not
examined with the stipulated period of three months.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…