Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Rakesh Kumar and Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging they, along with others, recorded an obscene video of a 16‑year‑old girl and blackmailed her. The prosecution charged them under Sections 75, 77, 78, 79, 351(3) and 351(4) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated and have clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and the seriousness of the offences involving a minor. After considering the gravity of the allegations and the direct nature of the accusations, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 351(3), 351(4), 75, 77, 78, 79
- Information Technology Act — s. 66E, 67
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- obscenity
- child pornography
- blackmail
- IT Act
- Section 66E
- Section 67
- minor victim
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7043 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2025 Thana- GORIAKOTHI District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of Darago Sah @ Daroga Sah Resident of Village -
Mahammadpur, Chandauli, P.S. - Goreakothi, District - Siwan
2. Rahul Kumar Son of Wakil Sah @ Vakil Sah Resident of Village -
Mahammadpur, Chandauli, P.S. - Goreakothi, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of Y Resident of Village - Mahammadpur, Chandauli, P.S. -
Goreakothi, District - Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 77, 78,
79, 351(3) and 351(4) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66(E) and 67
of the I.T. Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that 16 year
old minor daughter of informant was acquainted with all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners and
during course of acquaintance, they took some obscene video of
the victim and started blackmailing the victim.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7043 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Petitioners claim
clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that they, along with other
named accused persons, took some obscene videos of the victim
and started blackmailing her. The victim is aged about 16 years.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…