Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ambika Kumar @ Akhilesh Kumar Singh @ Akhilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on a bond with conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNS.

Summary

The petitioner, Ambika Kumar, was arrested in connection with a SC/ST police case alleging gang rape and caste-based abuse, with charges under multiple sections of the BNS, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. The petitioner argued that the alleged victim was an adult, the FIR was lodged 20 days after the incident, and the alleged relationship and promise of marriage negated the rape allegation, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra. The prosecution contended that a gang rape had been reported and that the petitioner was one of seven accused. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of medical evidence of injury, and the completion of the investigation with a charge‑sheet already filed. Considering these factors, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNS.

Issues considered

  • Whether the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR warrants bail.
  • Whether the alleged consensual relationship and promise of marriage preclude the offence of rape under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts.
  • Whether the absence of medical evidence of injury undermines the charge of gang rape.
  • Whether the completion of investigation and filing of charge‑sheet affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 353, 480(3), 70(1)
  • POCSO Act — s. 4, 6
  • SC/ST Act — s. 3(i), 3(r), 3(s), (wi)/3(2)(va)

Subjects

  • bail
  • rape
  • SC/ST Act
  • POCSO Act
  • delay in FIR
  • consent
  • gang rape
  • criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90280 of 2025
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Ambika Kumar @ Akhilesh Kumar Singh @ Akhilesh Kumar S/o Lal
                 Bahadur Singh R/o Village- Chakrhansi Pandepatti, P.S- Buxar (Mufassil),
                 Dist- Buxar.
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XX D/o Munna Ram R/o Village- Chakrhansi, P.S- Buxar (Mufassil), Dist-
                  Buxar.
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Dr.Kamal Deo Sharma, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   11-02-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 registered for the offence

                   under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 70(1), 353, 351(2) and 3(5)

                   of the BNS, sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act and 3(i),(r),(s),

                   (wi)/3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

                                3. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in

                   custody since 15.09.2025.

                                4. As per FIR, the informant alleged that petitioner

                   who was in taking terms with her for the last two years called

                   her and thereafter co-accused persons including this

                   petitioner committed rape upon her. She was also abused in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90280 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                            2/4




          the name of her caste.

                       5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submitted that the informant being major was in

          relations with this petitioner for long two years and when for

          any of the social reason the marriage of the petitioner was not

          approved by his parents, the present false implication of rape

          was raised against petitioner/ his family members. It is

          submitted that as per medical board finding which is available

          in para no. 79 and 201 of the case diary, it can be gathered

          safely that the age of victim was somewhere between 18-19

          years at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that FIR was

          lodged with delay of 20 days, without any just explanation.

                       6. Arguing further, it is submitted that victim was

          examined within 48 hours of the occurrence i.e., on

          21.02.2025, for the occurrence dated 19.02.2025, where she

          specifically alleged that she was gang raped by 7 accused

          persons including this petitioner but none finding of any bodily

          injuries including any injury in or around private part makes

          the allegation doubtful. It is also submitted that the allegation

          qua abuse in caste name also appears very general and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90280 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                            3/4




          omnibus in nature just to aggravate the allegation.

                       7. Arguing further it is submitted by learned counsel

          for the petitioner that corporeal relationship in background of

          promise of marriage cannot be termed as rape and in support

          of submission the reliance was made on               legal report of

          Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through                 Pramod

          Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharastra and Anr.

          reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.

                       8. Explaining criminal antecedent, learned counsel

          submitted that petitioner found involved in one more criminal

          case where upon trial he was acquitted and as such petitioner

          can be said man of clean antecedent for the present and

          moreover, investigation of this case is completed, for which

          charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, there is no chance

          of tampering with the evidence.

                       9. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail

          submitted that the allegation of gang rape is available against

          this petitioner.

                       10. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by

          taking note of fact as the FIR, in issue, was lodged after 20
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90280 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026
                                                           4/4




                         days of the occurrence, where admittedly the victim/

                         informant was in relationship for last two years prior to the

                         occurrence, coupled with fact as investigation of this case

                         already completed where petitioner remains in custody since

                         15.09.2025, accordingly petitioner above named, is directed

                         to be released on bail in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.

                         08 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees

                         Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to

                         the satisfaction of learned Spl. Judge, POCSO, Buxar

                         /concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned

                         under Section 480(3) of BNSS.


                                                                 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.