Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33721 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2024 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Mahto R/o Village- Mohjamma, P.S.- Paru, Dist.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Gobind Kumar Pandey S/o Late Sudama Pandey R/o Village- Jafarpur, P.S.- Paru, Distrtict- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Paru P.S. Case No. 330 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 74, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNSS, 2023 and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
3. According to allegation, while the informant's minor daughter was returning from school, the petitioner Rahul Kumar and two unknown persons intercepted, misbehaved and threatened her to kill. The petitioner is also said to have threatened to kill the father of the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, there is some dispute between the father of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33721 of 2025(4) dt.09-10-2025 2/2 petitioner and the father of the informant, due to which, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner misbehaved with a school-going innocent girl and went to the extent of threatening the father of the informant after lodging of the present FIR. He has further submitted that when the father of the informant went to complain to the father of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner told him that he had no concern with his son.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T