Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner as the allegations were serious and warranted detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Raushan Kumar Das, applied for anticipatory bail in a case where the FIR alleged that he, along with others, kidnapped a 20‑year‑old woman, rendered her unconscious, and subsequently committed rape, sexual exploitation and demanded a dowry of Rs 10 lakhs. The FIR was lodged on 23‑07‑2025 for an incident that allegedly occurred on 10‑06‑2025, and the petitioner contended that the complaint was false, that the relationship was consensual and that there was a delay in filing. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences listed under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, and the alleged kidnapping and rape. The court examined the nature of the allegations, the severity of the punishments, and the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, and concluded that the petitioner’s conduct warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, and the alleged kidnapping and rape preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the claim of consensual relationship affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 137(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64, 87
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- dowry demand
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- sexual exploitation
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90663 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani
======================================================
Raushan Kumar Das Son of Madan Das Resident of Village- Arer Durga
Mandir, P.S.- Patauna, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari D/o- Sri Shobhit Das R/o at - Bhauara Near Purani Durga
asthan ward no. -6 P.S. - Nagar District - Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, App.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Madhubani Mahila Police Station Case No. 46 of
2025, disclosing offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2),
87, 64, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. As per the FIR, on 10.06.2025, while the
informant was returning from R.K. College, Madhubani, after
taking examination, petitioner along with 3 to 4 persons was
waiting and kidnapped the informant in a car after making her
unconscious with the help of some intoxicant material and when
she regained her senses, she found herself in the house of co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90663 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
accused Ranjit Kumar Das, who is brother-in-law of the
petitioner. It has further been alleged that brother-in-law
informed the victim that petitioner has performed marriage with
her. The petitioner committed rape and sexual exploitation of
the informant. Thereafter, the informant told the petitioner to
perform marriage upon which the petitioner demanded Rs. 10
lakhs from the informant and asked her to bring the money from
her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with
concocted story. According to the FIR, the occurrence has taken
place on 10.06.2025, but the FIR has been lodged after much
delay on 23.07.2025. Between 10.06.2025 and 23.07.2025, no
sanha and/or complaint regarding missing person was lodged by
the parents of the informant. There was consensual relationship
between the petitioner and the informant and the informant is
major and is 20 years old. In fact, the informant eloped with the
petitioner for the last two years and on her own sweet will, she
moved from one place to another place with the petitioner. The
victim herself pressurized the petitioner to perform marriage,
but he refused and the present FIR has been lodged. The other
accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90663 of 2025(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
coordinate bench of this court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits
that in the FIR, there is a specific allegation against the
petitioner that he kidnapped the informant and established
physical relationship with her for so many days and when the
informant told the petitioner to perform marriage, he refused to
marry with her and raised exorbitant demand of dowry of Rs. 10
lakhs.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of
allegation against the petitioner and the severity of punishment
and the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, I am not
inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…