Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30093 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== Dhamu Sah S/O Mithan Sah @ Mithun Sah R/O Village- Kathaiya, P.SJagdishpur, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sudha Kumari W/O Girish Prasad Resident and Posted at Mahila Police Station Bettiah (Sub Inspector), P.S- Mahila Police Station Bettiah, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31511 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey Son of Raju Choubey @ Raju Choube Vill- Gurha, Post- Pipra, Ps- govindganj, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sudha Kumari SHO of Mahila Ps Bettiah Daughter of Grish prasad villagePo and Ps- Mahila, Ps- Bettiah, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30093 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31511 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta For the State :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey For the Informant :

Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30093 of 2025(6) dt.13-08-2025 2/3 the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Bettiah Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 98, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 6, 8, 12 of POCSO Act, Sections 75, 79 of J.J. Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of I.T. Act, Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bounded Labour System Act.

3.

The informant filed a complaint before the ADJ, Champaran, based on an NCPCR tip-off, leading to raids at seven locations by the police team. Sixteen girls were rescued, and victims gave statements under Section 180 BNSS alleging repeated sexual assaults, exploitation for dance, and being forced into sexual activities by various accused associated with different orchestra groups.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30093 of 2025(6) dt.13-08-2025 3/3 committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioners are in custody since 23.02.2025 and have got no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner sand submits that on perusal of record it appears that the several victims are minor girl. It is specifically submitted that petitioner, namely, Dhamu Sah used to inappropriately touch the body of victim, during dance on the stage, whereas petitioner, namely, Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey, established illicit relation with one of the victims. Bail of other co-accused has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05-08-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30142 of 2025.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence and involvement of the petitioners in the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 7.

The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T