SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4657

PATNA HIGH COURT
S. B. Pd. Singh, J
Gopal Kumar @ Nilu @ Nilu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69929 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Uday Chand Prasad

The court reinforced that direct allegations of serious offenses like rape, supported by evidence, warrant denial of bail.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks bail in Barahiya P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025, registered under the POCSO Act, for alleged gang rape and sharing obscene material. The petitioner contends false implication with a delay in reporting. However, victim corroborates the allegations against the petitioner. The court finds direct allegations of rape, denying bail and directing trial expeditious processing. The final order states: 'Accordingly, his prayer for grant of regular bail stands rejected.'

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 17-12-2025 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 4, 6, 12 and 14 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with co-accused Sunil Ram and five unknown persons have committed gang rape with the informant’s minor sister. Accused persons have also recorded the obscene video of the victim girl during the commission of crime and later on they posted it on FAcebook to which co-villagers have seen it on 09.06.2025.

Accused persons have threatened the victim girl not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise they would kill her brother.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 5 months without any plausible explanation. Petitioner has got clean antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 5.8.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Apart from the material of the case diary, the statement of the victim girl recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. also corroborates the allegation levelled against the petitioner. She has clearly stated in her statement that petitioner, co-accused Sunil and five unknown persons have committed rape with her. She also disclosed that they have posted her obscene video on Facebook. Several witnesses have supported the petitioner’s involvement in paragraphs 2, 10, 84, 85 and 86 of the case diary.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts there is direct allegation of commission of rape against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of regular bail stands rejected.

9. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top