Sanjeet Mehta @ Sajit Kumar @ Sanjit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50791 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== Sanjeet Mehta @ Sajit Kumar @ Sanjit Son of Bhupendra Mehta Resident of village- Madhuban, ward no. 05, PS- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mina Devi W/O Late Dipal Mehta Resident of village- Madhuban,Kanchan Tola, ward no. 05, PS- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2025 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. Allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of commission of rape upon the informant's minor

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50791 of 2025(6) dt.24-11-2025 2/3 daughter on the pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact, there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and the petitioner never forced victim to establish physical relations. Learned counsel further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that it is case of consensual relationship. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has corroborated the contents of the FIR, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also Section 183 BNSS statement of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50791 of 2025(6) dt.24-11-2025 3/3

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T