← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45692/2025bail rejected

Pawan Paswan @ Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-30Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45692 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2025 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Pawan Paswan @ Pawan Kumar S/O Late Naresh Paswan @ Karu Paswan Resident of Village- Chandwari Police Station- Jhajha, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anil Tanati S/O Brahmadeo Tanti Resident of Village- Chandwari Police Station- Jhajha, District- Jamui. Mob- 6200604385, Pin- 811308 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikramadit, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, lodged on 30.03.2025 by the informant Anil Tanti.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while they were at their Shop, upon alarm, rush to the home and found that the petitioner has tried to rape the minor daughter. The further allegation is that the petitioner is addicted to wine/smack and always has an evil eye on his daughter despite the fact that he is a married person. This led to the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45692 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 contrary to the submission, there is no direct/indirect allegation and/or the allegation of rape.

5. Learned APP on the other opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the petitioner being a marriage, tried to rape the minor daughter and only upon alarm, he escaped.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts as recorded in the present order couple with the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T