Patna High Court
Chandan RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the delay in filing, the grave nature of the offences, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent precluded its grant.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Rai, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a Mahila Police Station case (No. 95 of 2022) involving alleged offences under Sections 376AB, 511, 509 of the IPC and multiple sections of the POCSO Act. The FIR, lodged on 6 December 2022, alleged that the petitioner attempted to outrage the modesty of a minor while she was bathing. The petitioner claimed innocence, but the prosecution highlighted the two‑year delay before the bail application and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the lapse in time between the FIR and the bail petition. The Court considered the delay, the nature of the charges, and the petitioner’s prior record, concluding that these factors precluded the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite a two‑year delay in filing the application
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and POCSO Act warrants denial of anticipatory bail
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376AB, 509, 511
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 4, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- delay
- criminal antecedent
- high court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90502 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur
======================================================
Chandan Rai Son of Karu Rai @ Vishwnath Rai Resident of village-
Badhuna,Tole Tara,Ward No-11, Police Station - Vidiyapatinagar, District -
Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Daughter of Ashok Rai Resident of village - Badhauna Tole Tara, Police
Station - Vidiyapatinagar, District - Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 95 of 2022 instituted under Section
376AB, 511, 509 of the IPC and 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
of the POCSO Act lodged on 06.12.2022 by the informant,
Shanti Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that while she was bathing and pushed her younger brother
outside ,tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, he
escaped. This led to the FIR.
4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to
impress upon this Court regarding innocence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90502 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh has taken
this Court to show that the FIR is of the year 2022, two years
later, the petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge in
the year 2024 and after the rejection on 01.08.2024 has chosen
to file anticipatory bail application on 22.12.2025.
6. Considering the aforesaid allegation coupled with
the act of the petitioner beside his criminal antecedent, prayer
for anticipatory bail can not be entertained. Accordingly, the
anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…