Dismissed¶20

Yogendra Sah v. The State of Bihar

Bail – Regular bail, Sections 376/506 IPC

Patna HC17 Dec 2025CR. MISC./34740/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.34740 of 2025, decided 17-12-2025 by Justice Shailendra Singh. Regular bail application by Yogendra Sah in Mahila P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021 (Samastipur) under Sections 376 and 506 IPC for alleged sexual assault of a mentally and physically disabled woman unable to speak; informant mother claims eyewitness status and has been examined at trial; petitioner alleges false implication over a money dispute and cites absence of supporting medical evidence; custody since 29.11.2024. Bail rejected; renewal permitted after examination of all material prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; petitioner may renew his bail prayer after examination of all material prosecution witnesses. ¶20

Yogendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34740 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Yogendra Sah, S/o Late Bhuttu Sah, R/o Village- Madanpur Pokhraira, Ward No. 4, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, Distt.- Samastipur

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv. Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶8

5 17-12-2025

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel

¶10

for the petitioner and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned APP for the State.

¶11

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

3. As per the prosecution story, informant alleged that on the night of 15.10.2021, her daughter aged about 24 years, was sleeping on the verandah of her house. At about 2:45 a.m. on 16.10.2021, she heard her daughter crying and came out and saw Yogendra Sah (petitioner), a co-villager, lying on her daughter and sexually assaulting her. On seeing the informant, he ran away taking advantage of the darkness. The informant

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34740 of 2025(5) dt.17-12-2025 2/3

¶14

informed the villagers, and a Panchayat meeting was held, but the accused refused to accept it and threatened her. Thereafter, she went to the police station and submitted a written application. As per informant victim is mentally and physically disabled and unable to speak.

¶15

4. The main submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 29.11.2024, the informant's daughter who is said to be the victim is unable to speak and mentally challenged and the whole case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of the informant alone who has already been examined before the trial court and no incriminating medical evidence supporting the allegation of rape was found during the medical examination of the victim, in fact, there was a money transaction dispute between the petitioner and the informant due to which a false story was concocted by the informant.

¶16

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner took advantage of the victim's mental condition and sexually assaulted her though the victim is unable to speak but the informant claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence and has supported the said allegation before the trial court. It is

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34740 of 2025(5) dt.17-12-2025 3/3

¶18

further submitted that the victim was medically examined two days after the occurrence and prior to that Panchayat meeting was held in between both the parties which was the main reason for the delay in the registration of the FIR as well as the medical examination of the victim and there is nothing to support the petitioner's defence as to a money transaction dispute in between the petitioner and the informant.

¶19

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation appearing against the petitioner which relate to sexual assault allegedly committed by him with a completely handicapped woman and the informant is said to be an eyewitness of the occurrence, this court is not inclined to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

¶20

7. The petitioner may renew his bail prayer after the examination of all the material witnesses of the prosecution.

¶21

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶22

Rajiv/-

¶23

U T

Yogendra Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukti Mandal Vs Siyaram Mandal

Lal Babu Roy Vs Ram Kumar Roy

Panna Lal Sah @ Manna Lal Sah Vs Ramnaryan Sah @ Bhutiharwa Sah

Dr. Ganesh Lal Sinha @ Ganesh Lal Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar