Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sonelal @ BudhawaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations of gang‑rape of a minor were deemed sufficient to refuse relief.

Summary

The petitioner, Sonelal @ Budhawa, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a gang‑rape of a minor under sections 70(2) of the BNS, sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that the minor’s daughter reported being gang‑raped, and a co‑accused, Dipak Kumar, stated that the petitioner caught hold of the victim during the assault. The petitioner contended that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS named "Sonu Kumar" and not him. The court held that the minor discrepancy in naming does not diminish the seriousness of the allegation that the petitioner participated in the gang‑rape. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations of gang‑rape of a minor.
  • Whether a discrepancy in the victim’s statement regarding the accused’s name defeats the charge against the petitioner.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • gang rape
  • minor
  • POCSO Act
  • SC/ST Act
  • criminal procedure
  • discrepancy in naming

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76032 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Sonelal @ Budhawa S/o Gautam Mahto R/o Vill.- Kerawa, P.S. - Isuapur,
                 District - Saran

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Munna Nat Jangali Nat R/o Village-Parsa, P.S.-Isuapur, District-Saran.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   24-02-2026                    Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned Counsel for

                   the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Isuapur P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 for the offence registered

                   under sections 70(2) of BNS, Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act

                   and Section 3(i)(r)(s)(w)/ 3(2)(Va) of the SC/St Act.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that his minor daughter returned home crying and informed that

                   the named accused persons gang raped her. This led to the FIR.

                                4. In this case, the Co-ordinate Bench had called for

                   the case diary which is on record and Dipak Kumar who was

                   taken into custody made statement that during Dussera Puja,

                   they wanted to sexually assault someone and all the five persons
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76032 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     named in the FIR were present at the spot when this petitioner

                     caught hold of the victim girl and they repeatedly raped her.

                                  4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     girl in the statement under Section 183 of the BNS has named

                     Sonu Kumar, not this petitioner.

                                  5. Learned APP for the State, Mr. Bharat Bhushan

                     submits that five names are there in the FIR which include the

                     petitioner, the confessional statement of Dipak Kumar clearly

                     shows that it was the petitioner who caught hold of the victim

                     girl which followed the rape and the medical report shows that

                     she was only 13-14 years of age at the time of occurrence.

                                  6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

                     the materials on record, minor discrepancy in naming the person

                     cannot dilute the allegation that has come against the petitioner

                     that he along with four others gangraped a minor child. In that

                     background, no relief can be granted.

                                  7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-

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.