Nalin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55924 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Nalin Kumar S/o Late Fanidar Singh @ Late Azad Phanidar Singh @ Fanindar Singh Resident of Flat No. 302, B.B.Block, Shanti Vihar Apartment, Behind Reserve Bank of Inida, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State
2. The petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 357/2025 lodged on 14.06.2025, for the offences punishable under sections 126, 115(2),75,76,77,78,351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, when the informant was on the roof of her apartment, the petitioner along with three other accused persons attempted to commit rape upon her. It is further alleged that the accused persons threatened the informant to vacate the flat, failing which she would be subjected to rape.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55924 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025 2/3 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. For the alleged occurrence dated 13.06.2025 between 7:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M., the FIR was lodged on 14.06.2025 at 15:45 hours. The petitioner and the informant are neighbours, residing in the same apartment, on the same floor, and share a common lobby. It is contended that the present case is nothing but a neighbourhood dispute which has been escalated into a fabricated and exaggerated version in the FIR, with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the informant, who appeared suo motu in this case, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that during investigation, the I.O. has recorded the statements of several flat owners, all of whom have supported the conduct of the petitioner. It is further submitted that once the case diary is perused, the entire picture shall become clear.
6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is no necessity of calling for the case diary at this stage, as the learned Sessions Court has already perused the case diary and recorded that at least ten residents of the apartment have made similar complaints against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55924 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025 3/3
7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 357/2025, pending before the learned SDJM, Patna is hereby rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is directed to pass an order on his surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the petitioner's anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T