Randhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66098 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Randhir Kumar S/o- Laxman Ram @ Lakshman Ram Village- Saidpur PsHaspura Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XYZ d/o- Uday Ram Village- Saidpur Ps- Haspura Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bindeshwar Prasad Singh For the State :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP For the O.P.No.2 Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(1), 62, 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, registered in connection with Haspura P.S.Case No. 85/2025.

3. The victim is a minor girl aged about 13 years. The petitioner, according to allegation, caught hold of her and forcibly dragged her into a wheat field and attempted to commit rape on her. When the uncle of the victim came there searching for the victim, the petitioner assaulted her uncle and fled away.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66098 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He is in custody since 06.08.2025. It is submitted further that, as a matter of fact, grand-father of the petitioner and grand-mother of the victim are sister and brother, and grand-father of the petitioner had given 1⁄2 katha of land to the grand-mother of the victim and some dispute was also there between them which is the reason for false implication of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is nothing on the record, showing the land dispute. It is further submitted that, according to the school certificate, the age of the victim is 13 years.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the allegation levelled against the petitioner, presently I am not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T