Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 43449 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP For the Informant : Ms. Swati Parmar, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44012 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶20

4 05-12-2025 Both the cases arise out of same P.S being Mahila

¶21

P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 and hence, are being taken up together.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶23

counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43449 of 2025(4) dt.05-12-2025 2/3

¶25

A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioners in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 registered under section 70 of the B.N.S, 2023.

¶26

The allegations in the F.I.R is that four accused persons including the petitioners herein barged into the house of the informant and committed offence of gang rape and fled away.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the victim/informant is a 34 years old major lady and her house is situated in the middle of the village and there is no single witness who has stated that these persons were found in the vicinity of the place of occurrence but are only hearsay witnesses. It is further submitted that for an occurrence which took place on 02.03.2025, F.I.R was lodged on 04.03.20255 after a delay with no plausible explaination and the same raises doubt on the veracity of the F.I.R. Further, medical report of the victim lady is also indicative of the fact that no recent sign of sexual intercourse was found which seems impossible proposition considering the fact that the allegation is on four persons committing sexual offence. The petitioner no.1 Sunil Kumar and petitioner no.2 Pintu Kumar are in custody since 05.03.2025 and 20.03.2025 respectively. They undertake

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43449 of 2025(4) dt.05-12-2025 3/3

¶29

to co-operate in case/trial.

¶30

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State, however, learned counsel for the informant has informed this Court that the informant does not wish to pursue the present case.

¶31

Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner no.1 Sunil Kumar and petitioner no.2 Pintu Kumar are in custody since 05.03.2025 and 20.03.2025 coupled with the fact that there is delay in lodging of F.I.R as also absence of any finding of rape in the medical report, the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned where the case is pending/Successor Court.

¶32

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶33

Harsh/-

¶34

U T

Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Manohar Kumar @ Monu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sudama Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Kumar Rai @ Sujit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Mandal @ Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar