Patna High Court
Lavkush kumar @ Lavkhush kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage of the rape trial and rejected the petitioner's bail application.
Summary
Lavkush Kumar was charged with rape under Section 70(1) of the B.N.S. following a complaint that he, along with another accused, raped a woman while she was cutting grass. The victim later gave a statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., alleging she was unconscious at the time of the assault, a claim the petitioner contested, arguing that an unconscious victim could not perceive the crime and that the FIR did not mention unconsciousness. The prosecution relied on a medical examination report showing multiple abrasions, contusions, and an old hymen tear, and opposed bail. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024), which cautions against granting bail in serious offences once trial has commenced, the High Court noted that the trial was still at the charge‑framing stage and therefore denied the bail application, allowing a fresh petition after six months and directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a rape case at the stage where only charge has been framed.
- Whether the victim’s claim of being unconscious affects the evidentiary assessment for bail.
- Whether the medical evidence of injuries justifies denial of bail.
- Application of the precedent set in X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr (2024) regarding bail in serious offences.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- serious offence
- medical evidence
- unconsciousness
- trial stage
- charge framed
- precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85669 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- LAKHAURA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Lavkush kumar @ Lavkhush kumar, Son of Mishri Lal Sahani @ Mishir
Sahani, Resident of village- Ajagrwa, P.S.- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Devi, Wife of Dhaman Sahani, Resident of village- Ajagrwa, P.S.-
Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsha Shashwat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Bijendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 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 Lakhaura P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 70(1) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that while the
informant has gone to cut grass in the field, she was being raped
by the petitioner and one other.
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 due to enmity. During
course of investigation, the victim has given her statement under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85669 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has reiterated the story of
the prosecution but she has added that she was made unconscious
by the petitioner and one other accused and was raped in
unconscious position. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that if she was unconscious, how could she
know that she was raped. It has further been submitted that in
F.I.R., there is no description of unconsciousness of the victim. In
the F.I.R., it is simply stated that the petitioner and one other
committed rape with her. From perusal of the medical examination
report of the victim, it is clear that the doctor conducting medical
examination has found multiple abrasions and the abrasions on her
back also and has described that old hymen tear was present.
Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing
in judicial custody since 02.07.2025.
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 submitted that
from medical examination report of the victim, it is clear that she
has multiple abrasions an contusions on her body and on her back
as well. As per the case of the prosecution, the act was done in
field and the injury on the person of the victim speaks a lot.
6. Learned APP for the State has also relied on a
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85669 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of
2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which
is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
7. The report regarding the stage of trial from the
learned trial Court was also called for from perusal of which, it is
clear that the case is pending for evidence of prosecution. Only
charge has been framed.
8. 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.
9. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail
after six months.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trail.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…