Patna High Court
Guddu PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of clear prima facie evidence and given the possibility of false implication, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Guddu Pandey, Chhoteylal Pandey and Vitun Pandey sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging assault, attempted rape, and offences under the IPC, the Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999 and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that on 4 August 2023 the petitioners abducted and attempted to rape the informant's daughter. The petitioners contended that the allegations are false, stemming from an old village enmity and that the FIR was lodged a month after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. The court, after considering the lack of clear prima facie evidence and the possibility of false implication, ordered that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., and to appear before the exclusive POCSO court within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences under the IPC, Prevention of Witch Practices Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR/complaint indicates that the petitioners have been falsely implicated.
- Whether the petitioners pose a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354(B), 504, 506/34
- Prevention of Witch Practices Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 10
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual assault
- false implication
- POCSO Act
- Prevention of Witch Practices Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- section 438
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72154 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Guddu Pandey Son of Daya shankar Pandey Resident of vill-Pararia PS-
Siwan Muffasil Dist- Siwan
2. Chhoteylal Pandey Son of Daya Shankar Pandey Resident of vill-Pararia PS-
Siwan Muffasil Dist- Siwan
3. Vitun Pandey son of Daya Shankar Pandey Resident of vill-Pararia PS-
Siwan Muffasil Dist- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonamati Devi W/O-Keshwar Bhagat R/V-Sarsar, Ps-Muttasil, Dist-Siwan
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Kumari Anupam
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504,
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 / 4 of Prevention of
Witch Practices Act, 1999 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 04.08.2023 at about
9:30 PM, daughter of informant went to attend the call of
nature, in the meantime, all these petitioners came there, caught
her and disrobed her and thereafter, tried to commit rape upon
her. It is further that when informant came there, the accused
persons started assaulting her, but when neighbours and son of
informant reached there, the petitioners fled away from there.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72154 of 2025(7) dt.06-07-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence and
have been falsely implicated in this case due to old enmity. No
such occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R., ever took place. As a
matter of fact, both parties are co-villagers and there is admitted
dispute between them, for which, petitioners have lodged two
cases against informant side i.e. Complaint Case No. 931 of
2023 and Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 571 of 2018 and only
with a view to save their skin from those cases, the present false
case has been lodged. Learned counsel further submits that as
per complaint petition, said occurrence had occurred on
04.08.2023, but complaint case was lodged on 02.09.2023 i.e.
after about one month and there is no plausible explanation of
delay. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the above named petitioners, in the event of their
arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Court of POCSO, Siwan /
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72154 of 2025(7) dt.06-07-2026
3/3
concerned Court in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 313 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.