Patna High Court
Vishwajeet Singh @ VishuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Vishwajeet Singh petitioned for bail in a case where he is accused under IPC sections 498A, 377, 376, 323, 379, 341 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 for allegedly raping his wife, demanding dowry, threatening her family and causing bodily harm. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, soon after marriage, sexually assaulted the informant, intoxicated her, and forced her to consent to dowry demands, while the informant claims she was thrown from a roof. The petitioner contended he is innocent, has no prior criminal record, and that the allegations are vague; he also pointed to the regular bail granted to a co‑accused. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the specific and serious nature of the charges and that trial witnesses have already been examined. The Court, considering the gravity of the offences, the stage of the trial and the specificity of the allegations, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and the stage of the trial
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused influences the bail application of the petitioner
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 376, 377, 379, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- dowry harassment
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- trial acceleration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64135 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Vishwajeet Singh @ Vishu S/o Arbind Singh @ Arvind Singh R/o Village -
Khani Doura, P.S - Durgawati, District - Kaimur (Bihar) At present - House
No. - 525/1, Bhojuvir, Sarsuli, Varanasi, Dawat Family Restorent, P.S - Kant,
District - Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhitabh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Nabinagar (Badem O.P.) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024, instituted for
the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 377, 376, 323,
379, 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner
was married to the informant and sexually abused her in an
unnatural manner from the next day of their marriage, she was
also sexually abused by her in-laws and friends of her husband
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64135 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
after making her unconscious by providing intoxication in the
milk. On protest, the petitioner along with other co-accused
persons demanded a car as dowry and then only they will allow
her to go with her mother and father. It is further alleged that the
petitioner has threatened to kill her family members.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner is husband of the informant and the allegation levelled
against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. The
informant has also alleged that she was being thrown from the
roof but the informant was subjected to medical examination
and no apparent injury was found on her body. The petitioner is
in custody since 07.04.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-
accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 19.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66024 of 2024.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation
levelled against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64135 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
informant has stated about the forcefully establishment of
physical sexual relations by the petitioner and others. Learned
counsel for the informant further submits that the trial is in
progress and all the charge-sheeted witnesses have been
examined in this case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the
privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, present stage of the case, nature of accusation and
the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the Trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…