Dismissed¶20

Saroj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Feb 2026CR. MISC./44854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.44854 of 2025; decided 06-02-2026; Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.; regular bail rejected; offences under Sections 376(D) and 120B IPC; Maner P.S. Case No. 728 of 2023; victim's Section 164 CrPC statement naming petitioner; parity with co-accused Satendra Kumar and Sonu Kumar refused; main accused; rape case.

What did the court decide?

Parity with the co-accused is refused: co-accused Satendra Kumar was not named in the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement and co-accused Sonu Kumar was not identified during her deposition, whereas the victim named the petitioner, who is the main accused. ¶19

Saroj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44854 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-728 Year-2023 Thana- MANER District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Saroj Kumar S/o Subhash Rai R/o Village- Daudpur Bagicha, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Sahpur, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan For the State : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

8 06-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This is an application for regular bail on behalf

¶14

of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 376(D) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Maner P.S.Case No. 728 of 2023.

¶15

According to allegation, while the informant was returning from market, the petitioner intercepted her on her way, and snatched her mobile set. He brought her to Chhitnawan river and committed rape upon her.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. Other co accused persons have been granted bail by this Court.

¶17

So far as other co-accused persons are concerned,

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44854 of 2025(8) dt.06-02-2026 2/2

¶19

co-accused, Satendra Kumar was not named by the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC., whereas the victim did not identify co-accused Sonu Kumar during her deposition in court. The petitioner is the main accused and the victim has named the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

¶20

Taking into account the entire aspect of the matter as well as the allegation levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

¶21

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶22

HR/-

¶23

U T

Saroj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar 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

Mukesh Yadav @ Fatak yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Shravan Ram @ Shravan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ravikant Kumar @ Ravikant Sharma @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar

Ramdeni Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shadab Bari Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Mustafa @ Gulam Mustafa Vs The State of Bihar