The High Court at Patna is inclined to reject the petitioner's bail application in a rape case under Section 376D IPC, citing the serious nature of the offence and opposition from the prosecutor, despite the charge-sheet being filed.
Prayer for bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65441 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH Son of Late Ganninath Singh Resident of village - Dighara (Mirjapur), P.S.- Awatarnagar, District - Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dashrath Mehta, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER
2 23-05-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67 of the I.T. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2021, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
The informant alleges that on 23.06.2021, she had gone to attend the call of nature when she was intercepted by six accused persons, further two unknown accused caught her legs and the petitioner committed rape, while Bholu and Bhuar videographed the occurrence, further alleges that one unknown accused had pressed her mouth and after the occurrence, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65441 of 2021(2) dt.23-05-2022 2/3
accused threatened not to disclose the occurrence to anyone or else the video would be made viral, further her husband saw the video on 25.06.2021 but due to fear her husband did not lodge F.I.R. but the informant on 29.06.2021 instituted the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and coaccused Sujit Kumar @ Pandit Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 18.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56748 of 2021.
Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that co-accused Sujit Kumar @ Pandit Singh was not named in the F.I.R., his name came during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused, the allegation of rape is against the petitioner which is also recorded in the order dated 18.05.2022 granting bail to Sujit Kumar @ Pandit Singh, it is further submitted that the offence is very serious and heinous in nature as Rakesh (petitioner) committed rape while Bholu and Bhuar were videographing the occurrence and the husband even saw the viral video that in itself demonstrates that the occurrence had taken place as video was made viral.
Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65441 of 2021(2) dt.23-05-2022 3/3
petitioner. His prayer for bail is thus rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishi/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of rape under Section 376D IPC.
Whether the petitioner's claim of false implication warrants bail in a heinous offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Satyavrat Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
