Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/685/2026bail rejected

Rinku Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-27Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.685 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Rinku Kumar Son of Sri Tufani Sah Resident of village - Valmikinagar, N. H. 28(B), Marg, P.S.- Patkhauli, District - West Champaran. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Bindu Kumari Daughter of Sri Devilal Kaji Resident of village - Naurangia, P.S.- Naurangia, District - West Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. Mr. Binay Krishna.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 3023 of 2025, passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, SC/ST Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S. F.I.R. No. 25 of 2025 dated 17.05.2025, registered under Sections 341, 323, 376-D, 354B, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(2)(va)

2/4 of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that she stayed on rent in a room and taught yoga, further on 17.08.2022 at 9.45 P.M. Ratan, Diliip and Vikash came and entered her room and committed rape in turn and disclosed that they had made her video with yoga guru and if the occurrence is disclosed, the video would be made viral and thereafter left, accordingly on 18.08.2022 she was treated at Sub-Divisional Hospital, further on 13.11.2024, Vikash showed her inappropriate video and acted inappropriately, next alleges that Ravishankar was contesting municipal election, thus for benefit had made her inappropriate video with yoga guru viral, further alleges that henchman of Ravishankar including the appellant based on the inappropriate video established physical relation, further on 15.06.2020 at 8.30 P.M. Vikash and Dilip raped her in turn, next alleges that being fed up with the act of accused persons the case has been instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

3/4 allegation against the appellant is general and omnibus in nature rather the informant alleges that Ravishankar, who was contesting municipal election made her video viral and his henchman including the appellant based on the inappropriate video, established physical relation. It is also submitted that no doubt the informant alleges that she was treated in Sadar Hospital but then the said act of rape was not committed by the appellant herein.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that from perusal of the allegation, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant specifically alleges that her inappropriate video with her yoga guru was made viral by Ravishankar and appellant is associated with Ravishankar and against him it is alleged that appellant along with others also established relation with the informant and informant on being fed up with the harassment being meted out by the accused, the informant had no option but to institute the instant case. It is submitted that the appellant does not dispute in the appeal that inappropriate video of the informant with her yoga guru was not made viral. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

4/4 Special P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the appellant is rejected.

8. The appeal stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T