Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sapan MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court denied regular bail, holding that the seriousness of the rape allegation and the unreliability of the witness preclude grant of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Sapan Mandal, was arrested in February 2024 on charges of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, a clean record, and that the sole witness’s statements were contradictory and merely hearsay. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The Patna High Court, noting the gravity of the offence and the unreliability of the witness, dismissed the bail application. The court also directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure the appearance of the investigating officer and the doctor within a month, but clarified that its observations were prima facie and not a determination on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape and criminal intimidation
  • Whether the contradictory statements of the sole witness constitute sufficient ground to deny bail
  • Whether the delay in production of the investigating officer and medical evidence affects the bail decision

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • rape
  • IPC 376
  • criminal intimidation
  • hearsay
  • investigation delay

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7376 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2024 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Sapan Mandal Son of Bhusai Mandal Resident of Village - Kandaul, P.S.-
                 Azamnagar, Dist. - Katihar.
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Balkrishna Mishra, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   09-04-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                   Sessions Trial No. 274/2024, arising out of Azamnagar P.S.

                   Case No. 51 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections

                   376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. The petitioner is accused of committing rape with

                   the victim.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.

                   Petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2024 and has clean

                   antecedent. He further submits that PW 1 has initially said that

                   attempt of rape was made with the victim and subsequently he

                   said that the victim was raped but PW 1 is hearsay witness.

                                5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                   opposed the prayer for bail.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7376 of 2026(4) dt.09-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                                   6. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged

                      against the petitioner, this application for regular bail is

                      dismissed.

                                   7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                      petitioner is in jail since for two years but the I.O. and the

                      doctor has not been examined by the prosecution as yet.

                                   8. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar is directed to

                      ensure the appearance of the I.O. and the doctor within one

                      month from the date of communication of this order.

                                   9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the

                      Superintendent of Police, Katihar through FAX for its forthwith

                      compliance.

                                   10. It is made clear that any observation made herein

                      is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of

                      adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations

                      shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case

                      and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any

                      manner.


                                                 (Sandeep Kumar, J)

Ranjeet/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.