Randhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31336 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Randhir Kumar S/O Lakshman Ram R/O Saidpur, P.s.- Haspura, Dist.- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manju Kumari S/O Uday Ram so called minor guardianship of her father namely Uday Ram R/O Vill.- Saidpur, P.s.- Haspur, Dist.- Aurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Mukul Kumari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard Mrs. Mukul Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025, FIR dated 22.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(1), 62 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that on 19.03.2025 at around 08:00 P.M., while she was attending nature's call near her house, the petitioner forcibly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31336 of 2025(3) dt.30-07-2025 2/3 took her to a wheat field and attempted to rape her. During the incident, her uncle came searching for her and the petitioner allegedly assaulted him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 19.03.2025 but the present F.I.R. is instituted on 22.03.2025 i.e. after delay of four days afterthought only to falsely implicate the petitioner.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant, on other other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that the petitioner has tried to commit rape upon the victim and the age of victim is about 13 years which suggests that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence and there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he has tried to commit rape upon the victim.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31336 of 2025(3) dt.30-07-2025 3/3 supported by the witnesses and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in whcih she has supported the case of the prosecution, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Daudnagar, Aurangabad.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Neha/- U T