Lavkush kumar @ Lavkhush kumar v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./85669/2025 · 2026-04-01
Ashok Kumar Pandey
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3507 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3507 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85669 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- LAKHAURA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Lavkush kumar @ Lavkhush kumar, Son of Mishri Lal Sahani @ Mishir Sahani, Resident of village- Ajagrwa, P.S.- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Devi, Wife of Dhaman Sahani, Resident of village- Ajagrwa, P.S.- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsha Shashwat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant : Mr. Bijendra Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Lakhaura P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 70(1) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that while the informant has gone to cut grass in the field, she was being raped by the petitioner and one other.
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 due to enmity. During course of investigation, the victim has given her statement under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85669 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has reiterated the story of the prosecution but she has added that she was made unconscious by the petitioner and one other accused and was raped in unconscious position. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if she was unconscious, how could she know that she was raped. It has further been submitted that in F.I.R., there is no description of unconsciousness of the victim. In the F.I.R., it is simply stated that the petitioner and one other committed rape with her. From perusal of the medical examination report of the victim, it is clear that the doctor conducting medical examination has found multiple abrasions and the abrasions on her back also and has described that old hymen tear was present. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 02.07.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that from medical examination report of the victim, it is clear that she has multiple abrasions an contusions on her body and on her back as well. As per the case of the prosecution, the act was done in field and the injury on the person of the victim speaks a lot.
6. Learned APP for the State has also relied on a
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85669 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 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 Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.
7. The report regarding the stage of trial from the learned trial Court was also called for from perusal of which, it is clear that the case is pending for evidence of prosecution. Only charge has been framed.
8. 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.
9. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trail.
lata/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T