Sunil Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63002 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sunil Ram, S/O Ravindra Ram, R/O Village- Dumari Gopalpur, P.SBarahiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Tinku Kumar, S/O Dinesh Mandal, R/O Village- Gopalpur Ward No. 01, P.S- Barahiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brajesh Sahay, Advocate Mrs. Harshita, Advocate Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Barahiya P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 351(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S. and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 14 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner along with other has committed rape with minor sister of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63002 of 2025(8) dt.04-05-2026 2/3 the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is clear that the occurrence is of January, 2025 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged in the month of June, 2025 i.e. after six months of the occurrence. It has further been submitted that the delay which has been caused in filing F.I.R. is not explained. It has further been submitted that during course of investigation, the victim has given her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has supported the case of the prosecution and has also named one coaccused Nilu but no case has been filed against Nilu. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 15.06.2025.

5. A report from the learned trial Court was also called for regarding stage of trail from perusal of which it is clear that five out of nine witnesses have already been examined.

6. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that of committing rape. He has also relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 wherein in para- '14', Hon'ble Apex Court has held which is being quoted hereunder:-

14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63002 of 2025(8) dt.04-05-2026 3/3 Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

8. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

9. Learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the trial in view of Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T