Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8543 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Raja Kumar Son of Upendra Das Resident of Village - Sihama Ward No.2, P.S. - Chhourahi, District - Begusarai (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025 Heard Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahila (Begusarai) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 376, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape on the victim several times and also extorted her ornaments worth Rs. 1,40,000/-

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. There is previous enmity between the parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8543 of 2025(2) dt.28-02-2025 2/2 There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. There is no medical report available in the record since the informant refused to attend the medical examination. He further submits that there is no iota of evidence available to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 25.10.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T