Parmeshwar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14223 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-652 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Parmeshwar Sah S/o- Late Pachkauri Sah @ Pachikauri Sah R/v- Bhasar Machhaha Ps- Sitamarhi Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Meena Devi w/o- Late Rambali Sah R/v- Bhasar Machhaha, Sahu Tola, W.No-11, Ps- Sitamarhi Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Madhubala Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murlidhar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 652 of 2025 dated 28.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 65 of B.N.S. and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act.
3. As per the allegation, this petitioner is alleged to have committed rape upon the victim girl, who is stated to be nine years old.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14223 of 2026(3) dt.20-04-2026 2/2 that there is a delay of five days in lodging of the FIR. There is no signature of the informant on the formal FIR and the allegation is in the backdrop of Panchayat Election. It has further been submitted that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape. The petitioner is in custody since 29.09.2025 having one criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that the victim is aged only nine years old and the allegation is with respect to Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that charges in this case have been framed and one witness has been examined during the trial.
6. Perused the records and considered the submission of the parties, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer for bail of the petitioner and is accordingly dismissed. (Praveen Kumar, J) shivam/- U T