Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34710/2025bail rejected

Praduman @ Praduman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-13Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34710 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Praduman @ Praduman Kumar, son of Damodar shah, Resident of village - English Chichron, P.S.- Akbarnagar, Distt. - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Puja Kumari, Daughter of Krishna Sah, wife of Vikeshwar Sah, Resident of village - English Chichron, P.S. - Akbarnagar, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the informant :

Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant/O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Akbarnagar P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 6 and 10 of POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation, 8 years old son of the informant has been sexually assaulted by committing offence of having unnatural sex.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that charge has already been framed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34710 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/2 against the petitioner.

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 03.10.2024.

6. It has also been stated in paragraph No. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. It is also stated in paragraph No. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

8. However, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature committed against eight years old child and the case diary is full of the material in support of the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

9. Considering the nature of allegation and material on record, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/- U T