Pappu Yadav @ Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58153 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2024 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== Pappu Yadav @ Pappu Kumar S/o Shovi Yadav @ Saheb Yadav R/o Village - Ramganj, Ward No. 08, P.S - Gawaplada, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Hira Devi W/o Bindu Sharma R/o Village - Bharna Tola, Ward No. 5, P.S - Barhara Kothi, District - Purnia ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barhara Kothi (R.Nagar) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The accused/petitioner is named in the First Information Report and is in custody since 03.05.2025.

4. Allegation against the petitioner is to commit rape/penetrative sexual assault upon the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years, while she went for cutting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58153 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 2/3 grass alongwith Poonam Kumari.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was not apprehended alongwith victim girls from the train and his name transpired in this case only out of local dispute and differences. It is submitted that medical report is also not supporting the occurrence.

6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that investigation of this case is already completed, for which charge-sheet has been submitted and, as such there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. However, petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, submitted that this is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as both recovered victim girls aged about 16 years and 14 years categorically stated, while recording their statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C./183 of the B.N.S.S., that this petitioner alongwith one co-accused Amit committed rape upon them. It is also pointed out that non-finding of injury upon the victims does

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58153 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 not lead to conclusion ipso facto that rape was not committed upon for the reasons that rape is a legal finding not a medical one.

8. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of the fact as both victims categorically stated in their statement as recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that this petitioner alongwith co-accused committed penetrative sexual assault/rape upon them, accordingly, prayer of bail of the petitioner stands rejected herewith for the present.

9. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2025, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within preferred timeline as provisioned under section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- U T