Dismissed¶23

Deepak Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Miscellaneous – bail

Patna HC13 Nov 2025CR. MISC./45462/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45462 of 2025, decided 13-11-2025 by Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. Bail application by Deepak Kumar Singh in Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025 (S.64 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, S.4 POCSO Act, S.37 Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act), alleging rape of the informant's minor daughter. Petitioner in custody since 03.02.2025; charge-sheet filed. Bail rejected on grounds of nature and gravity of the offence and the informant eyewitness supporting the prosecution case; Trial Court directed to expedite trial. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None — prayer for grant of bail rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial. ¶23

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45462 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Deepak Kumar Singh S/O Rajendra Prasad Singh @ Rajendra Singh R/O Village- Kali Prasad, P.s.- Pirpanti, District Bhagalpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Mala Devi w/o - Karu Mandal R/o- Kalli Prasad ward no. - 2 P.S. - Pirpainti Distt.- Bhagalpur.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. P.K. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 13-11-2025 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel

¶13

for the petitioner assisted by Mr. P.K. Sinha, Advocate and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State as also Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

Prosecution case in a nutshell is that petitioner

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45462 of 2025(6) dt.13-11-2025 2/3

¶17

allegedly entered into the informant’s home and rape the minor daughter of the informant when she was alone in home.

¶18

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶19

It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village rivalry and personal enmity. The written report itself shows contradictions, as the informant had locked her house from outside, making entry of the petitioner impossible. The medical report also negates allegations of rape, finding no injury or evidence of intercourse, and even the age of the alleged victim appears to be above 18 years. The case arises from a long-standing dispute over a passage, and no independent witness has supported the prosecution version.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that informant is the eye witness of the case and she has fully supported the prosecution case. Victim is mentally retarded hence her mother has given statement on her behalf. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case under

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45462 of 2025(6) dt.13-11-2025 3/3

¶22

Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence as also the fact that informant, who is an eye witness, has supported the prosecution case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected .

¶24

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶25

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶26

Raj Kishore/- U T

Deepak Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Singh 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

Hira Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Barun Kumar @ Varun Kumar Mahato Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Ishar @ Sudhir Kumar Ishwar Vs The Union of India, Through the Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna

Ravi Chaudhari @ Ravi Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dani Ram @ Singeshwar Ram Vs The State of Bihar