Patna High Court
Amar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, upholding the earlier order denying bail.
Summary
Amar Kumar was charged under Sections 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged rape in conjunction with other accused. He applied for regular bail for the second time, claiming false implication and lack of eyewitnesses, and has been in judicial custody since June 2022. The State opposed, citing the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC that specifically implicated the petitioner. The Patna High Court, after hearing both sides, found the seriousness of the allegations warranted denial of bail and saw no ground to revisit its earlier order. The court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused of rape and criminal conspiracy under Sections 376 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the earlier bail denial order can be reviewed in light of the petitioner's claims of false implication and lack of eyewitnesses.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- IPC 376
- IPC 34
- criminal conspiracy
- judicial custody
- CrPC Section 164
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91065 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2022 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna
======================================================
Amar Kumar Son of Vidhyanand Nut @ Vidya Nand Nat Resident of Village
- Azad Nagar, P.S. - Bikram, Distt. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No.
276/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
376/34 of Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 54494 of 2023 which reads as under:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
The petitioner has filed the instant application
for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 376/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner in
connivance with other co-accused persons ravished the
informant when she has gone out side of village for call
of nature at about 9 PM.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91065 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026
2/2
petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
this case. There is no eye witness of the alleged offence.
Moreover, the Petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 23.6.2022.
In contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of
the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner
and submitted that victim has specifically stated about the
complicity of petitioner in her ravishment. She has stated,
in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
that the petitioner has committed rape with her in
connivance with other co-accused persons.
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 and,
as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
Learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial and conclude the same within stipulated time as
mentioned in the status report of Trial Court.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial is progressing and four witnesses have
been examined.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…