Lal Babu Mahto @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76355 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Lal Babu Mahto @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar S/O Late Ramphal Mahto R/O Vill.- Ladaura(Ladhauda), P.O- Ladaura Pakri, P.S- Turki (O.P) Kudhani, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
X N/A N/A ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 :
Mr. Shishir Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present application has been filed for renewing his prayer for bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
3. The allegation in the F.I.R is that the petitioner had entered the house of the informant and committed rape with her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 29.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 9292 of 2025 with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76355 of 2025(5) dt.30-01-2026 2/3 of charge. Charges have been framed against the petitioner in the learned Court concerned on 20.08.2025 and out of seven charge-sheet witnesses, only one witness has been examined till date and is not likely to conclude in the near future. It is further submitted that the informant/victim has been medically examined during course of investigation and the medical report does not support the allegations as no spermatozoa has been found in the vaginal swab of the informant/victim. The petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, strongly opposed grant of bail on the ground that trial has commenced and as such petitioner dos not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts of the case and considering that charges have been framed in the matter and out of seven charge-sheet witnesses only one witness has been examined, and is not likely to conclude in the near future as also the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2024, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76355 of 2025(5) dt.30-01-2026 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court on the following conditions:-
(1) The petitioners shall remain physically present in the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(2) The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T