Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4596 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2024 Thana- MEDNI CHAUKI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Suraj Kumar S/O Subhuk Lal @ Subhuk Lal Mahto R/O Vill.-Kiranpur, P.S.- Medni Chowki, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mausam Kumari (Fictional Name) D/O Parmanand Mahto R/O Vill. and Post- Kiranpur, P.S.- Medni Chowki, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-07-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecution for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mednichowki P.S. Case No.205 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 69 and 81 of B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant was under training of GNM at Gwalior where she came in touch with the petitioner for the last six months and it is alleged that the petitioner on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with the informant exploited her physically and thereafter declined to marry her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4596 of 2025(5) dt.08-07-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the informant was in love with the petitioner and as an afterthought, she has lodged the present case and the petitioner has preferred his career over marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations against the petitioner is not proved from the medical examination which was conducted and which would reveal that no sexual assault had been committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel has next submitted that it is with an ulterior motive that he has been implicated in this case. The petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 17.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the informant in the FIR as well as in her statement given under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. has specifically alleged against the petitioner of physically abusing her and has also stated that the petitioner on the pretext of marriage had been exploiting her for the last six months and thereafter, he declined to marry her.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and also the fact that the report submitted by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4596 of 2025(5) dt.08-07-2025 3/3 learned Trial Court points out that there are five charge-sheet witnesses who are to be examined, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and the application for bail is rejected.

7. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial on day to day basis and to ensure that the prosecution witnesses who enters appearance on the fixed dates must be examined. It is further directed that if the learned Trial Court finds that there is deliberate attempt on behalf of the prosecution to delay the disposal of the trial, the same shall be dealt strongly and necessary action should be taken against the prosecution witnesses. It is further directed that the learned Trial Court shall try and expedite the trial and conclude within the next six months.

8. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach this Hon'ble Court if the trial is not concluded within the next six months.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Anushka/- U T