IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28959 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- GALGALIYA District- Kishanganj ====================================================== 1. Sakal Tudu son of Lakhiram Tudu Resident Of Village - Hathiduba churli, Ps- Galgalia, Dist- Kishanganj 2. Santosh Tudu Son of Suklo tudu Resident Of Village - Hathiduba churli, Ps- Galgalia, Dist- Kishanganj 3. Supol Murmu son of Badhalal Murmu Resident Of Village - Hathiduba churli, Ps- Galgalia, Dist- Kishanganj 4. Rajesh Tudu son of Sanjay Tudu Resident Of Village - Hathiduba churli, Ps- Galgalia, Dist- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in connection with Galgalia P.S. Case No. 80 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under sections 70(1), 70(2), 126(2), 115(2) and 303(2) of BNS and charge has been framed under Section 70(1), 126(2), 115(2), 137(2) and 140(4) of BNS. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have committed rape with the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28959 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the name of this petitioners is not there in the FIR and during course of investigation, one co-accused has given his confessional statement and has named petitioner no. 1 as well. Learned counsel has submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not support the allegation of rape. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, they are languishing in judicial custody since 12.09.2025. 5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that in this case, the informant is a married lady and she was subjected to forceful intercourse by six accused persons. She was being overpowered by them. The victim herself has supported the case of the prosecution during investigation. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage and, as such, their prayer for bail stand rejected. 7. However, the petitioners may be at liberty to renew Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28959 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 their prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded or if the informant supports them during trial. Shubham/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T