Rajesh Kumar @ Lelha @ Babloo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58517 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar @ Lelha @ Babloo Kumar S/O Ramanand Singh Resident of village- Ballia, Bariyarpur, P.S- Ballia, District- Begusarai, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chandan Kumar Singh S/O Late Kari Singh R/O Village- Ballia, Bariyarpur, P.S- Ballia, Distt.- Begusarai, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for regular bail has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Ballia Case No. 41 of 2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 6, 8 and 11(v) of the POCSO Act and Section 67(B) of the I.T. Act.

3. Earlier the application for regular bail of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 81003 of 2024 with a liberty that he may renew his prayer for bail after two months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58517 of 2025(3) dt.29-08-2025 2/2 that trial has not been concluded as yet. It has been brought to the notice to this Court that till today, the victim has not been examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that POCSO Act provides that the victim must be examined within one month of the order of the cognizance.

6. Be it as may be, it is a case of Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, the examination of the victim is essential as the victim has still not been examined, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage, hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

8. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail either after three months or after the examination of the victim, whichever is earlier.

9. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- U T