Rohit Kumar @ Rokit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71146 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2025 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Rokit Kumar S/O Tapeshwar Sao, Resident of VillagePirthu, P.S- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Salaiya P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 dated 12.07.2025 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 96 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had forcibly taken the niece of the informant in an Auto and went to an unknown place where he misbehaved with her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the victim were caught by the police from Anugrah Narayan Railway Station. The victim was examined by the police and she clearly stated that since last two years, she is in love with the petitioner and she with her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71146 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 own sweet will, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2025 having no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. in which she has supported the case of the prosecution.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

8. Accordingly the prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.

9. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the expiry of one year. (Khatim Reza, J) premchand/- U T