Tarkeshwar Sharma @ Chhotu Sharma @ Chhote Lal Sharma @ Chhote Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7227 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-558 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan ====================================================== Tarkeshwar Sharma @ Chhotu Sharma @ Chhote Lal Sharma @ Chhote Sharma S/o Late Bam Bahadur Sharma Resident of Village - Pakadi, P.S. - Barharia, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP representing the State as also Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel representing the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barharia P.S. Case No. 558 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 62, 109(1), 118(1) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 23.11.2025 by the informant Sushmita Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while she was going to attend the nature's call, the petitioner firstly made obscene gesture, later caught hold and threw her on the ground and remove her clothes. As she screamed, he outrage her modesty and later assaulted. This led
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7227 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026 2/2 to the F.I.R..
4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that there is a land dispute between the parties, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, representing the informant submits that the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, no woman of a family to settle the score, can come forward with such allegation.
5. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the allegation that has come, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T