Dismissed¶7

Ravindra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Jul 2025CR. MISC./5497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: bail rejection; gang rape; Indian Penal Code Ss. 341, 323, 376, 376(D), 506/34; Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, Muzaffarpur; Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim statement; name surfaced through co-accused Raju Kumar Ray; co-accused bail precedent Cr. Misc. No. 78218 of 2024 (rejected 30-01-2025, Co-ordinate Bench); custody since 15-06-2024; four criminal antecedents; charge sheet filed; false implication claim; expedite-trial direction; Patna High Court 2025; Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; Cr. Misc./CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5497 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the petitioner's involvement established from the statement of the co-accused, the Court was not inclined to grant bail at this stage; the prayer for grant of bail was rejected.

Ravindra Rai Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 376, 376(D), 506/34 IPC, should be granted bail, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, his disclosed criminal antecedents, and his involvement established from the statement of the co-accused.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

¶7

Key takeaways

Ancillary direction: the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible, without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.), oral order dated 08-07-2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 5497 of 2025 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, District Muzaffarpur (offences under Sections 341, 323, 376, 376(D), 506/34 IPC): bail application of Ravindra Rai, one of four accused in an alleged gang rape of the informant-victim, REJECTED. Petitioner in custody since 15-06-2024 and disclosed four criminal antecedents; not named in the FIR, his name surfaced through FIR-named accused Raju Kumar Ray as an associate; during investigation the informant's mother attributed the occurrence solely to Raju Kumar; charge sheet has been filed. The State opposed bail citing the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement alleging gang rape by Raju Kumar and three unknown accused, with Raju Kumar disclosing the petitioner as an associate, and noting that a Co-ordinate Bench had already rejected co-accused Raju Kumar Ray's bail (order dated 30-01-2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 78218 of 2024). Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement established from the co-accused's statement, the Court declined bail and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial without undue delay or unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5497 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

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

¶4

Ravindra Rai Son of Late Gajendra Rai Resident of Village - Bara Jagarnath, P.S. - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Soni Kumari Daughter of Sanjay Ram Resident of Gobarsahi, P.S. - Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. N.N. Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 08-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶15

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 376, 376(D), 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

3. As per prosecution case, informant-victim was gang raped by the four accused persons, including the petitioner.

¶17

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 15-06-2024. Petitioner bears four criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5497 of 2025(5) dt.08-07-2025 2/3

¶19

5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case by the FIR named accused, namely, Raju Kumar Ray as one of his associates in the alleged occurrence of gang rape. During investigation, mother of the informant stated that it is only Raju Kumar who took away the victim and established physical relationship with her. Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge sheet in this case.

¶20

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., victim has specifically alleged that she was gang raped by one Raju Kumar and three unknown accused and the said Raju Kumar has disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of his associates in the crime. Bail of co-accused, Raju Kumar Ray, has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30-01-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 78218 of 2024. Hence, he does not deserve the privilege of bail in such a heinous case.

¶21

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5497 of 2025(5) dt.08-07-2025 3/3

¶23

involvement of the petitioner which is established from the statement of co-accused, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected .

¶24

8. 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

Ravindra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Rajbhar Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Paswan @ Amarjit Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Kumar Yadav @ Subhash Kumar@ Subhash yadav Vs The State of Bihar