Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar Yadav was arrested in connection with a Mahila Police Station case alleging offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 376, 420 and 506/34, including wrongful restraint, hurt, rape, cheating and criminal intimidation. The prosecution alleged that he promised the complainant a government job, took Rs 4 lakhs from her, and had a physical relationship with her. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, highlighted a delay in filing the complaint, asserted that there was no forceful sexual intercourse, and claimed he had already repaid the money. The informant’s counsel sought bail denial, while the petitioner’s counsel argued lack of substantive evidence and the petitioner’s right to liberty. After hearing both sides, the court found the allegations insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered bail. The petitioner was released on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 376, 420 and 506/34.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the absence of evidence of force affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the alleged financial cheating influences the decision on bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 376, 420, 506/34
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- rape
- IPC
- delay in complaint
- false accusation
- criminal intimidation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80601 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Mohan Yadav @ Late
Mohan Prasad Yadav R/o Village - Sukhlahi, P.S. - Mainatand@ Mainatarh,
Dist. - Bettiah.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 70 of 2022 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 420 and 506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution based on the complaint
petition, in short is that the complainant is an educated
unemployed lady. She came in connection with the petitioner,
who is an assistant teacher working at village Gauripur. It is
further alleged that the petitioner assured that he will arrange
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80601 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
government service for her, and it is alleged that the petitioner
established physical relationship. It is further alleged that the
petitioner kept the complainant at her house for many days and
introduced her as his colleague. It is further alleged that from
the year 2019 the petitioner has taken Rs. 4 lakhs for arranging a
government job for the complainant and that he has established
physical relationship on this score only.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at
Annexure-3, there is also an FIR filed by the complainant in this
case, which states that her marriage was fixed with one Rajiv
Ranjan Pandey. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey had assured that he will
marry her, and on this assurance, she went with him to Rajrappa
Mandir, where he established physical relationship with her.
Whenever she objected, he threatened her of committing
suicide. This shows that the complainant is in the habit of
implicating the youth on the ground of forceful sexual
intercourse on this or that pretext.
5. It has also been submitted that, as per the complaint
petition, there is an allegation that from the year 2019, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80601 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
petitioner cheated her of Rs. 4 lakhs on the pretext of arranging
government job, whereas this complaint was lodged in the year
2022. There is no explanation for the delay. He further submits
that the complainant and the petitioner both are majors. He also
submits that from the perusal of the complaint petition itself, it
is clear that there is no forceful sexual intercourse and only
allegation is that the intercourse was committed on the
assurance of arranging job. He further submits that the petitioner
is languishing in judicial custody since 26.08.2025.
6. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for
the State. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the
petitioner has cheated the informant and has taken Rs. 4 lakhs
from her for arranging job. It is also submitted that he should be
directed to pay the said amount. Learned counsel for the
informant has also stated that Rs. 4 lakhs rupees were paid in
cash and in account also but he is not having evidence regarding
payment of entire Rs. 4 lakhs. He is having statement of bank
for certain rupees.
7. Countering this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is also having the
statements which will go to show that he has already paid the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80601 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
informant more than that amount.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Mahila P.S.
Case No. 70 of 2022.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.