Advocates:
['Nikhil Singh', '', 'Sumeet Kumar Singh', 'Binay Krishna']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1631 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya

======================================================

RAHUL KUMAR @ RAHUL YADAV @ RAHUL KUMAR YADAV S/o

Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra Kumar Resident of Jhurang, P.S.- Fatehpur,

District- Gaya

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar

2.

Lalita Kumari daughter of Sukhdeo Chaudhary resident of village- Naudiha,

P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

4

13-10-2022

Learned counsel for the Appellant is permitted to

remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a

period of four weeks from today.

Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the Appellant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for

the State.

This is an appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST

Act”) against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated

08.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POSCO-cum-

A.D.J.-VI, Gaya in connection with Mahila P. S. Case No. 33 of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1631 of 2022(4) dt.13-10-2022

2/4

2021 (vide POSCO Case No. 14 of 2022) registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(3) of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w) I of the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The prosecution case is based on a written report

filed by the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that on 23.08.2021

at mid-night, the appellant entered into her house and committed

rape upon her by closing her mouth. It is also alleged that when

the victim raised hulla, thereupon, all the family members

gathered there but the appellant succeeded in fleeing away.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submitted that during the course of investigation, it

has transpired that both the appellant and the victim having love

affair and the appellant frequently used to visit her house and

this fact has also been admitted by the victim in her further

statement recorded on 28.08.2021, even after the statement of

the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 26.08.2021. It

is further submitted that the statement of the sister-in-law

(Bhabhi) of the victim was also recorded wherein she also

narrated the similar fact that on the fateful day when both the

appellant and the victim were found in a compromising position,

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1631 of 2022(4) dt.13-10-2022

3/4

the family members started raising hulla and on being

pressurized, this F.I.R. has been instituted by the victim. It is

next submitted that the appellant is just a twenty years old boy

and he is in custody since 30.01.2022. It is last submitted that in

compliance of the order of this court, notice was issued to the

newly added respondent no. 2 but none appears. The learned

counsel for the appellant also came to know on being instructed

that the marriage of the victim has also been solemnized and as

such, she has lost interest and she does not want to pursue the

present matter any further.

On the other hand, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the bail application

and submits that the specific allegation has been levelled against

the appellant that he has committed rape upon her and this fact

has also been corroborated by the statement of the victim

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. It is also submitted that the

victim was examined by a doctor and her age has been assessed