Brahm Kumar @ Brahmdev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29827 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- ARER District- Madhubani ====================================================== Brahm Kumar @ Brahmdev Kumar S/o- Shyam Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kapasiya PS- Arer, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Shivani Kumari D/o- Dashai Mukhiya Village- Kapasiya Ps- Arer DistMadhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr.Sudhanshu Trivedi, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP For O.P. No. 2 :
Mr.Shailendra Kr. Jha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64 of BNS, 2023 and section 4 of POCSO Act.
3. The victim/complainant is a minor girl, according to the medical report annexed with the case diary. She alleges that the petitioner continued sexual relation with her at the false pretext of marriage. The petitioner committed rape upon her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29827 of 2025(6) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. There is no explanation of delay of three months in lodging of the FIR/complaint. He has submitted further that although the victim is minor, according to the medical report, but no sign of sexual assault was found. He has also submitted that the petitioner himself was juvenile on the date of occurrence.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the victim is a minor girl and till date, the petitioner has not taken plea of his juvenility before the competent court. The petitioner himself has written his age as 25 years in the bail petition.
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