Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17153/2025dismissed

Subodh Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-15Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17153 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Ray S/O Baleshwar Rai R/O Village- Lohani Patti Kaiju, P.SPatepur, Distt.- Vaishali (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranjit Sharma S/O Ashafi Sharma R/O Village- Lohani Patti Kaiju, P.SPatepur, Distt.- Vaishali (Bihar). ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with (Hajipur, Vaishali) Mahila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of committing rape with the minor girl.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17153 of 2025(7) dt.15-09-2025 2/2 informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. The victim girl has supported the prosecution story in her statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through Section 35(b) of the POCSO Act and has submitted that the trial may be directed to be concluded within one year.

10. This Court will not pass a direction for concluding the trial within particular period. However, if the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) anand/- U T