Charan Hembram @ Ramu Pradhan @ Majhi Hasda v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2639 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Charan Hembram @ Ramu Pradhan @ Majhi Hasda S/O Late Ramsai Hembram R/O Ward no 15 Sitalpur Purabdangi P.S Paharkatta, DisttKishanganj, Bihar-855117 ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ms. X W/o- Sanjay Murmu Village- Garam Khuda, Gram PanchayatKoltha, Ps- Paharkatha Dist- Kishanganj ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1cum-Special Judge, Kishanganj, in connection with Kishanganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30/2017, registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 376(D), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By the impugned order, the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that he, along with five others, committed sexual assault upon the victim,

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2639 of 2024(6) dt.12-03-2026 2/2 allegedly one by one.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case and therefore the application of the anticipatory bail is maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants.

6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Sufficient material has come during the investigation to connect the appellant with the crime.

7. Considering the nature and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant in the present case.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application and shall not prejudice the case of the appellant at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T