Patna High Court
Uday Kumar @ Uday YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage given the seriousness of the offences and the evidence presented.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday Kumar, sought regular bail in a case involving alleged sexual assault and other offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner forcibly entered the informant's house, established a physical relationship at gunpoint, and threatened her family, with the FIR lodged on 21‑07‑2024. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed 13 days after the alleged incident, highlighted contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183, and pointed to a medical report indicating no recent sexual intercourse, while noting the petitioner’s clean record and custody since 25‑09‑2025. The informant’s counsel countered that the victim’s statements consistently described a forceful relationship, and the medical report showed hymen rupture, supporting the seriousness of the allegations. After considering the evidence and the gravity of the offences, the court declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 126(3), 352, 351(2), 64 & 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 affect the bail application
- Impact of the medical examination report on the assessment of the alleged sexual assault
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record and duration of pre‑trial custody warrant bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- POCSO
- medical evidence
- contradictory statements
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84698 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Uday Kumar @ Uday Yadav Son of Badho Yadav Village- Lemboya PS-
Roushanganj, Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX YY Village- Lemboya PS- Roushanganj, Dist- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2),
126(3), 352, 351(2), 64 & 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 4
& 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner misbehaved with the informant and when her family
members came, petitioner threatened them of dire
consequences. It is further alleged that earlier when the
informant was alone at her house, the petitioner entered in her
house and forcible established physical relationship with her.
The informant has specifically stated that the physical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84698 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
relationship was established on the point of gun whenever the
informant raised alarm her mouth was gagged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the FIR it is clear that according to the FIR the
petitioner has established physical relationship with the
informant on 08.07.2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged on
21.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that during course of examination the victim has
given her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. In
her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, there is
contradiction. It has further been submitted that from perusal of
medical examination report it will transpire that the Doctors
have opined that there is no evidence of recent sexual
intercourse, however, rape cannot be denied. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having no
criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody
since 25.09.2025.
5. Countering this, learned counsel for the informant
has vehemently opposed the bail and has stated that the
informant has stated in the FIR that the petitioner has
established forceful physical relationship with her and that the
statement has been reiterated by her during course of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84698 of 2025(4) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
investigation in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the
BNSS. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the
medical examination report it will transpire that the medical has
been conducted on 21.07.2024 whereas the alleged forceful
relationship was established on 08.07.2024. So the opinion of
the Doctor that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse
is right to some extent. It has further been submitted that from
perusal of the entire report it will transpire that the Doctor has
found Hymen ruptured at 6 o’ clock position.
6. It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim
is a married lady. This goes to show that physical relationship
has been established with her and the statement of the victim in
the FIR and under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS
corroborates the same.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he
may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not
concluded. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…