← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23589/2025dismissed

Raja Babu Yadav @ Raja Babu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-12Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23589 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Raja Babu Yadav @ Raja Babu Kumar S/O Kailash Yadav R/O Vill.- Piprahi, P.S.- Tilkeshwar, Dist.- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Sarita Kumari D/O Late Bhuttu Yadav R/O Vill.- Gadhepura, P.S.- Tilkeshwar, Dist.- Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tabish Sharfuddin For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner sexually exploited the victim at the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the victim became pregnant, and the petitioner absconded, leaving her.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. As a matter of fact, the victim and the petitioner developed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23589 of 2025(7) dt.12-11-2025 2/2 physical relationship with their own sweet will.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is aged about 14 years. The petitioner exploited her sexually and she became pregnant. Moreover, the process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T