Patna High Court
Shivshankar Sah @ BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's regular bail application, allowing a re‑application after six months if the trial is not concluded.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivshankar Sah, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 117(2), 64 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that he performed exorcism and was accused of raping a six‑month‑pregnant woman. The prosecution contended that the petitioner, under the pretext of exorcism, raped the victim on two occasions and left a bite mark on her chest, which was corroborated by the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and a medical examination report. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, highlighted a seven‑day delay in filing the FIR, claimed the parties had compromised the matter, and emphasized his clean criminal record and custodial status since 1 July 2025. The State’s counsel refuted the compromise claim, maintained the victim’s consistent testimony, and explained the FIR delay as due to the victim’s illiteracy. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail at this stage, directing that the petitioner may renew his bail application after six months if the trial remains pending, and consequently rejected the regular bail prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a rape case under Sections 117(2), 64 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the seven‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants bail.
- Whether a compromise between the parties affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 117, 351, 64
- BNSS — s. 180, 183
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- exorcism
- FIR delay
- compromise
- medical evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80889 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Shivshankar Sah @ Bhagat Son of Vindeshwar Sah @ Bindeshwar Sah
Village- Madhaipur PS -Siwaipatti Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of Sukindra Ray Resident of village- Bariyarpur, Ps- Tariyani, Dist-
Sheohar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 117(2), 64, 351(2) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner is practicing exorcism and that the informant was
having pain in her shoulder and stomach. She was also six
months pregnant. She, along with her husband, went to the
petitioner. It is alleged that the husband was kept at some far
place and the petitioner, in the garb of exorcism, committed rape
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80889 of 2025(3) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
on two days.
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. He also submits that on the second occasion, the petitioner
gave tooth bite on the chest of the informant. He also submits
that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the occurrence is
from 20.06.2025 to 22.06.2025, whereas the FIR has been
lodged on 30.06.2025. There is a delay of seven days in lodging
the FIR, and the delay is not explained. He also submits that due
to the invention of the well-wishers, parties have compromised
the case and a compromise petition has been filed in the learned
trial court. He further submits that a statement has been made in
para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent
and he is languishing in judicial custody since 01.07.2025.
5. 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 has submitted that
the parties have compromised the case. During the course of the
investigation, the victim has given her statement before the
police recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS,
wherein she has supported the case of the prosecution and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80889 of 2025(3) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
specifically stated that the petitioner has committed rape with
her and has given her tooth bite on the chest. From perusal of
the medical examination report also, it will transpire that the
doctor conducting the medical examination of the informant has
found biting mark on the breast. The learned APP for the State
has stated that in the garb of exorcism, the petitioner has
committed rape with the victim. As far as the delay in lodging
the FIR is concerned, it is stated that as the victim is illiterate,
the delay has been caused.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…