Xxx v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29654 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2024 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad ====================================================== XXX D/O Sri Uday Yadav Through her Father Sri Uday Prasad @ Sri Uday Yadav, S/O Chandra Dev Yadav. R/O Mai Mathia, P.S.- Bhelabar, Dist.- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

Rohit Prakash @ Guddu S/O Chhotu Yadav R/O Mai Mathia, P.S.- Kako, Bhelabar, Dist.- Jehanabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 :

Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, Jehanabad vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 1769 of 2024 in connection with Kako (Bheladar) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 110, 76, 303(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29654 of 2025(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 on the ground that no notice was served upon the informant as the offence was under POCSO Act.

4. I have gone through the FIR and found that no offence under the POCSO Act is made out. Therefore, I do not any infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party no.2. Further the petitioner has not been able to show any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

5. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

6. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) shalini/Pawan U T