Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Rawani Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35411 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2026 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya

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

Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Rawani Son of Anil Rawani @ Anil Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Gosain Bagh, Gurudwara Road, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictGaya

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV ORDER

¶11

3 25-06-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 308(5), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the informant, who is a woman aged about 36 years, alleges that the occurrence is of 24 months ago. It is alleged that she came into contact with the petitioner through Instagram, as she was also engaged in an online business. According to the informant, the petitioner initially called her to a cafe, where she met him. Thereafter, he took her to M-Zone, where they had a meal. It is alleged that the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35411 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026 2/4

¶16

petitioner thereafter committed rape upon her and also recorded obscene videos of the act. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly started blackmailing and threatening her with the said videos, compelling her to act according to his directions. It is further alleged that when the husband of the informant came to know about the matter, he tried to conciliate the matter. However, the petitioner started demanding money and is stated to have taken a sum of approximately Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs from the informant. It is further alleged that on 17.01.2026, 15-20 persons assaulted the husband of the informant and one Pankaj Kumar.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the FIR itself, it is clear that the allegation of forceful sexual intercourse is of 24 months ago, whereas the case has been filed on 18.01.2026 after the alleged assault on the husband of the informant and one Pankaj on 17.01.2026. He further submits that the owner of the cafe, Raj Kumar Singh, has given his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, wherein he stated that the informant and the petitioner visited the restaurant several times, and there was no room in the cafe, and the cafe did not provide any other room, whereas the informant has stated in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS that she was administered some intoxicants; after that,

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35411 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026 3/4

¶19

she got unconscious, and the petitioner raped her. It has been submitted that it is highly improbable that in a cafe, where there is no room, such a kind of act can be committed. Learned counsel further submitted that in any view of the matter, the occurrence of rape was 24 months ago, and the informant has not complained anywhere regarding the said occurrence. He further submits that there is an allegation that the petitioner has clicked the video of the rape. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is highly improbable that one person will commit rape and also make videos, and the allegation that the video was made seems to be unreliable. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 12.03.2026.

¶20

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of four cases of different nature.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall remain physically present on each and every date fixed by the learned court below. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35411 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026 4/4

¶23

thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Gaya

¶24

Ji in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2026.

¶25

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶26

Sudhanshu/-

¶27

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV Date	21.05.2026
Uploading Date	25.06.2026
Transmission Date	25.06.2026

Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Rawani v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Rawani 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

Munni Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Heena Kausar @ Hena Kausar @ Hena Kaisar Vs The State of Bihar

Amarjeet Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Shubham Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Ray @ Sumit Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar