Ajit Kumar Ram @ Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5111 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2024 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Ram @ Ajit Kumar S/O Gopal Ramani R/O vill - Rajwada, P.S - Katoriya, Dist- Banka.

.. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Renu Devi W/O Mantu Kumar Sah R/O vill - Lodiya, P.S - Belhar, DistBanka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case No. 138 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. Accusation against the petitioner is of establishing physical relationship with the victim girl on the pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that victim is the own sister of the petitioner's sister-in-law. Learned counsel further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5111 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2025 2/2 submitted that chargesheet has been submitted in this case and cognizance has also been taken. Learned counsel further submitted that on perusal of the FIR it appears that victim was in love with the petitioner and wants to marry the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the case of the prosecution. Learned APP further submitted that consent of the minor girl has no meaning in the eye of law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T