Patna High Court
Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Rajeev RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the rape allegation and the evidentiary material did not justify release at this stage.
Summary
Petitioner Rajeev Kumar Yadav was charged under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. for alleged rape of a married informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner entered the informant’s house at 4 a.m., tied her children, and raped her, supported by the informant’s statement and medical findings showing injuries on the petitioner. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserted a prior financial relationship with the informant, and presented an account statement to support his claim, also noting his clean criminal record and custody since August 2025. The State and the informant’s counsel contested bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegation, the lack of evidence of a consensual relationship, and the credibility of the informant’s testimony. The court, after evaluating the seriousness of the charge and the medical evidence, refused bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of rape under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- Section 64(1)
- medical evidence
- credibility of witness
- criminal procedure
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82950 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Rajeev Ranjan, S/O Bodh Narayan Yadav, R/O Vill.-
Kamarachak, Chakheli, P.S.- Sangrampur, Dist.- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, Advocate
Ms. Rupali Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 64(1) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
entered in the room of the informant in early morning at 4:00
A.M., tied her children and committed rape with her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that he has annexed Annexure-P/2 which
is account statement of the petitioner will go to show that there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82950 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
was relationship between the petitioner and the informant and he
he used to pay her. It has further been submitted that this case has
been filed out of mis-conception. Petitioner is having no criminal
antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since
25.08.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of
regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that
there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in relation with the
informant. The informant is a married lady having three kids.
Petitioner has entered in the house of the informant at 4:00 A.M.
and during course of investigation, medical examination of the
informant and petitioner both was conducted and from perusal of
the medical examination of the petitioner, it is clear that following
injuries were found on his persons:-
(i) Wound mark at right side of face, (ii) Four abrasion
at right side of neck present, (iii) No any external injury
The informant has also given her statement during course of
investigation and has stated that the petitioner has committed rape
with her and she has further stated that he has hushed the police
due to which informant and her mother were assaulted by the
police also. The story of consent which has been developed by the
petitioner does not seem to be believable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82950 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
for bail stands rejected.
7. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail
after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…