Patna High Court
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Ram @ SanjeetversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the condition of a bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeet Kumar, was charged under Section 70(1) of the B.N.S. for alleged rape of a 45‑year‑old informant who is also his sister‑in‑law. The petitioner argued that the FIR was concocted and filed with an unreasonable delay, noting that the alleged incident occurred on 31‑12‑2024 but the FIR was only registered on 11‑11‑2024. He further highlighted that the medical report showed no signs of violence or sexual assault and that the victim’s relatives testified that the petitioner was a known visitor with a strained relationship, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail, relying on the allegations in the FIR and Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The court, considering the delay, lack of medical evidence, the familial relationship, and the petitioner’s clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to appearance conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a rape case under Section 70(1) of the B.N.S. given the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the evidence.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of medical injuries justify a presumption of innocence warranting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- family relationship
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77304 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1732 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Ram @ Sanjeet S/o Late Sidheshwar Ram R/o
Mohalla- Nat Toli, Khagaul Lakh, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pathak
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 70(1) of the B.N.S.
3. Petitioner is said to have committed rape with the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the
outset, that the FIR is a totally concocted and belated document
inasmuch as while the occurrence took place on 31.12.2024 and
according to her own assertion, she had fled away on
01.11.2024 yet the information was given to the police on
05.11.2024 and the formal FIR was registered on 11.11.2024
which was received in court on 14.11.2024. Such a delay in
lodging of the information to the receipt of the FIR in the court
makes the entire case of the prosecution suspicious. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77304 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
submitted that the informant, who is a lady aged about 45 years
has specifically taken the name of two persons who were sitting
in the tempo along with their details, one of them being the
petitioner, which makes it clear that the petitioner and others
were known to her. As a matter of fact, the petitioner happens to
be a close relative of the informant as the son of the informant
and the petitioner are brother-in-law (Sarhu). Further, the
medical report also indicates that there is neither any mark of
violence found on her body nor any sign of sexual assault.
Further, statements of daughter and son-in-law of the informant
recorded in paragraph-8 and 9 of the case diary also indicates
that they did not report any matter to the police and rather
stated that the petitioner is related to them and is on visiting
terms and they had strained relationship. It has been submitted
that since the petitioner was known to the informant/victim and
was also on visiting terms, there is no reason why he would
commit any such act with the petitioner. Moreover, the
petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2025 and charge-sheet has
been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for bail on the ground that there are allegations in
the First Information Report supported by the statement under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77304 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the factum of delay caused
in lodging of the First Information Report coupled with the fact
that the petitioner and the victim are both related and medical
evidence also does not show any sign of violence etc, let the
above named petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S.
Case No. 1732 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the
petitioner shall appear on each and every date till conclusion of
trial and if the petitioner does not appear on two consecutive
dates without any substantial and satisfactory reason, the
learned court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…