Raja @ Raja Mehta @ Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76704 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2025 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Raja @ Raja Mehta @ Raja Kumar son of Late Binod Mehta Village -Shiv Nagar Ward No 09 Ps- Raniganj District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Mithilesh Sah son of Late Pramod Sah Village - Kalabalua, Ward no. 10, PsRaniganj, Dist- Araria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Gulnar Begum, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026 Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant and Mrs. Gulnar Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 12.07.2025 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 69/2025 arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 251/2025, F.I.R. dated 11.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 87, 96, 137(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have kidnapped the minor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76704 of 2025(6) dt.18-04-2026 2/3 daughter of the informant for the purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that the allegation against the petitioner is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was in love with the victim and with the consent of the victim, the petitioner and the victim fled away from the house of the victim.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. has supported the prosecution story. On perusal of the Medical Report, it transpires that the hymen of the victim founds to be ruptured (old) and on the point of the age determination of the victim, date of birth as mention in the Birth Certificate issued by Department of Planning and Development, Government of Bihar is 16.07.2011 from which it transpires that the victim is a minor at the time of alleged occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the victim recorded under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76704 of 2025(6) dt.18-04-2026 3/3 Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 69/2025 arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 251/2025 pending in the court of learned D.A.J. VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Araria.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) atul/- U T