← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44293/2025dismissed

Shashikant Kumar @ Munna Paswan @ Munna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-03Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44293 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- KHUDAGANJ District- Nalanda ====================================================== Shashikant Kumar @ Munna Paswan @ Munna Kumar S/o- Devendra Paswan Village- Bhaik PS-Makhdumpur District-Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pinky Devi W/o- Mukesh Paswan Village- Panhar PO- Panhar PSKhodagunj District- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Singh For the State :

Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Khudaganj P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 registered under Sections 64, 351(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner has committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened her to abort the child and due to fear, she aborted the child.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is a person of clean antecedent. It has further been submitted that the medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44293 of 2025(6) dt.03-12-2025 2/2

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as State, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the victim is 14 years of age. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C./ 183 of the BNSS, in which she has supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T