Ashish Kumar @ Priyanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38357 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2024 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ashish Kumar @ Priyanshu Kumar S/o Devendra Prasad, R/o VillageKatahari P.S.- Sathi, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP.

For the informant :

Mr. Raki Alam, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 for the offences registered under Section 376(2)(n), 314, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, the prayer for bail of petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by granting anticipatory bail to the other three petitioners by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.52949 of 2024. It is submitted that the medical examination report of victim does not reveal any sign of sexual assault or any opinion regarding abortion of the informant. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38357 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025 2/2 further submits that the petitioner and informant were in love affairs. He submits that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial.

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the anticipatory bail of petitioner was earlier dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.11.2024 and no fresh ground is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is alleged to have made physical relationship with the informant against her will and when she became pregnant she was aborted, therefore, the petitioner does not deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the serious allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U T