Dismissed¶23

Md. Rabban v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Aug 2025CR. MISC./37667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Crl. Misc. No. 37667 of 2025, decided 21-08-2025 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) — bail application rejected in rape case under Sections 376 and 225 IPC, Baisi P.S. Case No. 368 of 2023, Purnia; grounds urged: false implication, land dispute, ten-month delay in FIR, informant's retraction petition and compromise, no criminal antecedents, custody since 20.02.2025; State relied on gravity of offence and victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; bail declined; trial to be concluded preferably within six months with liberty to renew bail prayer thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and taking into account the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court was not inclined to grant bail. ¶21

Md. Rabban Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37667 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2023 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Rabban Son of Karim @ Abdul Karim Resident of Karwa, P.S.- Baisi, District - Purnea

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Fazle Karim, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 21-08-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 368 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 376 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the petitioner is of committing rape upon the victim.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant and there is a land dispute between the parties. He further submits that there is delay of ten months in lodging the F.I.R.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37667 of 2025(3) dt.21-08-2025 2/3

¶19

that too without there being any plausible explanation for the same which creates doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant realizing her mistake has filed a petition in the learned court below stating therein that no such occurrence has ever taken place as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that both the parties have entered into compromise and a compromise petition has also been filed. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 20.02.2025 without any rhymes or reason.

¶20

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in nature. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically supported the prosecution case and has made direct allegation against the petitioner of committing forceful rape upon her.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as also taking into account the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37667 of 2025(3) dt.21-08-2025 3/3

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

rishi/-

¶26

U T

Md. Rabban v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Rabban v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Kumar @ Lucky Vs The State of Bihar

Arjun Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar @ Bittu Vs The State of Bihar

Asraful Hussain Vs The State of Bihar

Mohar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Rajbali Mahato @ Rajbali Mahato Rajbali Vs The State of Bihar