Raja Ram @ Raja Raja Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31319 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2021 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Raja Ram @ Raja Raja Ram S/o Devendra Ram R/o village - Meghpur (Chhota), P.S. - Sursand, Dist. - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Virendra Shukla @ Birendra Shukla S/o Jageshwar Shukla R/o vill - Meghpur (Chhota), ward no. 9, P.S.- Sursand, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 52 of 2021, FIR dated 15.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that his daughter had gone to appear for her Intermediate exam in the year 2021. When she did not return home, the informant and his family searched for her. A person informed them that the petitioner along with co-accused persons forcibly dragged into the tempo and kidnapped her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31319 of 2025(3) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 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. In fact the petitioner was in love with the victim girl and victim girl has performed the marriage with the petitioner. In the entire bail petition, the petitioner has not stated anywhere that he has performed marriage with the victim girl and even the petitioner has not stated anywhere that on which date and where he has performed marriage with the victim girl.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on other other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 52 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

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