Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40798 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ramesh Yadav Son of Jineesh Lal Yadav @ Jinish Lal Roy @ Jineesh Lal Yadav @ Jinis Lal Ray R/O Vill- Sawol, Barhaulia Bazar, DistrictDarbhanga, (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar BIHAR 2.

Sulekha Devi Wife of Vijay Sah R/O Vill- Sawal, Ward No.-07, P.S.- Simri (Simari Bazar), District- Darbhanga (Bihar).

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Simri P.S. Case no. 58 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 76 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2025, the victim aged about 14 years went out to feed her buffalo. At that time, petitioner was looking into the courtyard. He forcibly took her daughter to her hay house, pressed her mouth with his hand and started pressing her chest forcefully with the other

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40798 of 2025(2) dt.25-07-2025 2/2 hand and wanted to make her daughter fall down and attempted to commit rape with her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that there is delay of few days in filing of the case.

5. From perusal of the order of the trial Court, it will transpire that the petitioner has given her statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNS wherein she has supported the prosecution case. As per the record, the date of birth of the victim is 06.03.2011. Admittedly, she is minor.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T