Ayush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31788 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Ayush Kumar S/O Mani Yadav @ Manoj Yadav R/O Vill.- Nayagaon, Shiromani Tola, Parbatta, P.S.- Parbatta, Dist.- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

X D/O Y R/O Vill.- Garhirampur Post- Nawagadhi, P.S.- Ramnagar Garhirampur, Dist.- Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 339 of 2025 in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per prosecution case, on the pretext of marriage the petitioner established sexual relationship with the informant. It is further alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 09.08.2025 when the informant came to live with the petitioner, the co-accused persons namely Himanshu Kumar and Mithlesh

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31788 of 2026(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 Kumar started abusing the informant and the petitioner refused to marry the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the occurrence took place on 01.10.2024 but the F.I.R. has been lodged after about one year of the alleged occurrence i.e. on 09.09.2025, without any cogent explanation. Lastly, the counsel submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the victim is minor, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Alok Kumar, J) khushbu/- U T