Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37988 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar S/o- Dhanusdhari Prasad @ Dhanushdare Prasad Village- Puna PS- Hilsa District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 810 of 2025 lodged on 25.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 303(2), 70(1), 74, 75(2), 76 and 3(5) of B.N.S, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant and her sister-in-law after finishing their work, they were returning home. Meanwhile, Nitish Kumar @ Sillu and the present petitioner, Rajesh Kumar agrees to drop the informant and her sister-in-law at Fatuha by his motorcycle. It is further alleged that instead of dropping to the said destination, accused persons

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37988 of 2026(3) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 took them to an isolated area and assaulted them. Later on, Nitish Kumar committed rape and Rajesh Kumar also attempts to rape the informant. However, informant and her sister-in-law managed to escape through the main road.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. Counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court towards the nature of crime and the allegation levelled against the petitioner.

6. Having heard the parties and taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. It is expected that the Trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of six months.

(Alok Kumar, J) Bipin/- U T