Patna High Court
Karu @ Karu Singh @ Sanoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that earlier dismissal of anticipatory bail on merit cannot be revisited merely because a co‑accused was later granted anticipatory bail, given the gravity of the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioners, accused of attempted rape and related offences under IPC sections 452, 376, 511, 380, 379, 323, 504, 506 and 427, filed anticipatory bail applications arising from Complaint Case No. 1346 of 2022. Their earlier applications were dismissed on merit on 26‑10‑2024 and 22‑11‑2024. They filed second applications, arguing that a co‑accused, Vivek Kumar, had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench on 09‑09‑2025. The court examined the nature and severity of the alleged offences and noted that the earlier dismissals were based on these considerations. It held that the grant of bail to a co‑accused does not compel a review of the earlier orders against the petitioners. Consequently, both anticipatory bail applications were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners after an earlier dismissal on merit, considering the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused by a coordinate bench affects the petitioners' applications.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376, 379, 380, 427, 452, 504, 506, 511
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- attempted rape
- assault
- IPC
- severity of offence
- co‑accused
- coordinate bench
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82024 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1346 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Karu @ Karu Singh @ Sanoj Kumar S/o Sagina Singh Resident of Village-
Kharabaiya, P.S.- Shahjahanpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Pooja W/o Upesh Kumar Resident of Village- Sirpatpur, P.S.- Fatuha,
District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 88218 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1346 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Kunnu Kumar Bashist @ Vashist @ Vashist Kumar @ Vashishtha Kumar S/O
Kul Bhushan Singh R/O Village- Sirpatpur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Pooja W/O Upesh Kumar R/O Village- Sirpatpur, P.S.- Fatuha, District-
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82024 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 88218 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. Since both the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications
arise out of same Complaint Case No. 1346 (C) of 2022 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82024 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
04.11.2022 registered under Sections 452 / 376 / 511 / 380 /
379 / 323 / 504 / 506 / 427 of the I.P.C. as such both are taken
up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioners have filed second anticipatory bail application
after dismissal of their earlier anticipatory bail application on
merit on 26.10.2024 & 22.11.2024 vide Cr. Misc. No. 71338 /
2024 & 72112 / 2024 respectively.
4. The prosecution case as per the complaint case is that on
22.10.2022 while the complainant was alone in her house, the
petitioner and other accused persons came to her house and
started misbehaving, dragged her in a room and disrobed her
and tried to commit rape. After alarm being raised, her family
members and villagers came there who were also assaulted by
the petitioners and other accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to re-argue the
matter and took this Court to the statement made in paragraph
no. 1 of the complaint petition and submits that the allegation is
that the petitioners and other accused persons tried to commit
rape upon the complainant. He further submits that subsequently
anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Vivek Kumar has
been allowed and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 09.09.2025 has granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82024 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
Vivek Kumar.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the previous orders whereby prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been rejected. It appears
that this Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail applications
on merit taking into consideration the nature of offence and
severity of punishment. If, subsequently, some co-accused has
been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench
particularly when the rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail of
the present petitioners was not placed before the learned Judge
at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail application of the co-
accused, I do not find any reason to review my earlier order
dismissing the anticipatory bail applications on merit and to
allow second anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners.
Accordingly, both these applications are dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…