Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the nature and gravity of the offences warrant continued custody.
Summary
Rahul Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging rape, wrongful restraint, hurt, insult and common intention under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought bail after an earlier anticipatory bail application had been rejected. He claimed innocence, citing a 41‑day delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, and no prior criminal record. The State argued that the victim is a minor, her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita supports the prosecution, and the allegations are specific and serious. The Court, considering the gravity of the offences and the risk of tampering, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and other serious IPC offences
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 376, 504
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- minor
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79680 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/o- Upendra Prasad Resident of Village- Karamawa Ward no
7, P.s.- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. x D/o- Mukesh Kumar R/v- Karamawa W.No-7, Ps- Majhauliya Dist- West
Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Adarsh Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 434 of 2024, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Earlier, anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been
rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
11.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6127 of 2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79680 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
4. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner
established physical relationship with the informant (victim) on
the pretext of marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is
delay of 41 days in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that
there was love affair between the informant and the petitioner
and for this reason the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
this case. It is further submitted that the medical report of the
informant does not corroborate with the prosecution case. The
petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2025 and has got no criminal
antecedent.
6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the victim is minor
and she has supported the prosecution case in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation
levelled against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not
deserve the privilege of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79680 of 2025(3) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the Trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…