Mithlesh Ram @ Mithlesh Kumar Bharati v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50295 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2022 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Mithlesh Ram @ Mithlesh Kumar Bharati Son of Bachhu Ram Resident of village - Ahirrauli Don, Police Station - Taraiya Sujan, District - Kushinagar, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Fulwanti Devi C/o Baijnath Ram Resident of village - Vansi Tola, Police Station - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Prerna Anand, Advocate Mr. R.S. Sahay, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Vijay Kr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Dhanaha P.S. Case No. 298 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 370(A)& 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner and others for the purposes of marriage. During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and she has given her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50295 of 2025(3) dt.17-10-2025 2/3 has stated that while she was returning from school, the petitioner met her, he was having a pair of cloths of the victim and showing the cloth. He misrepresented the victim that her mother has sent him to take her to the house of Rinki with him. On this misrepresentation, the victim followed the petitioner to Rinki at Tamkuhi Road, there she lived till 31.12.2022 and there, her marriage was solemnized with one Vinay Sangwan by Rinki and this petitioner along with others. She has further stated that she lived with Vinay Sangwan as husband and wife and after two months, she came back.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no role of this petitioner in the alleged occurrence. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 10.06.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that from perusal of the statement of the victim, it is clear that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50295 of 2025(3) dt.17-10-2025 3/3 petitioner is the person who misrepresented the victim and took her to the house of Rinki and there, her marriage was forcefully solemnized with Vinay Sangwan.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- U T