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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3399

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Raubins Kumar @ Rauvinsh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73325 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Rana Hason
For the Respondent: Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP

Bail granted based on absence of criminal history, delay in FIR report, and mitigating circumstances.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the application for bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 641 of 2025 registered under sections 64, 115(2), 127(2), and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involving allegations of forced physical relations under the pretense of marriage. The Court determined that the delay in reporting the incident, lack of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and the submission of the charge-sheet justified the granting of bail. The issues framed included the legitimacy of the bail application based on previous conduct and claims made in FIR, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner should be released on bail.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case no.641 of 2025 registered under sections 64, 115(2), 127(2) and

352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she was in a love affair with the petitioner for the last 1½ years. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her on the assurance that he would marry her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. From the contents of the F.I.R itself it would transpire that the parties being in a relationship has been admitted therein. The allegation of the petitioner establishing physical relations forcibly is incorrect and denied. It is for this reason that while the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 10.7.2025 and the police station being at a distance of only 1 km, information at the police station was given more than 24 hours later in the late night of 11.7.2025. The petitioner is in custody since 12.7.2025, has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

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

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being in custody for 6 months since 12.7.2025, charge-sheet having been submitted in the case and especially the petitioner not having any criminal antecedent, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case no.641 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

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