Nitish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64779 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui ====================================================== Nitish Kumar Son of Awadh Mahto @ Avdesh Mahto, R/O Vill.- Tetariya, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist.- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Rakhi Kumari D/o Daso Yadav, R/O Vill.- Tetariya, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist.- Jamui.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Prasad, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chandradeep PS Case No. 86 of 2024, FIR dated 08.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3.

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner committed rape upon the minor informant.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64779 of 2024(2) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 implicated in the present case and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He lastly submits that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to ulterior motive. 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, apart from that, medical report of the examination of the victim suggests that the date of birth of of victim is 01.01.2009, which suggests that on the date of occurrence victim was a minor.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Chandradeep PS Case No. 86 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamui.

7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T