Anand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79868 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Anand Kumar Son of Arun Kumar Mahto @ Arun Mahto Resident Of Village -Shyampur Baithaniya, Ps -Majhauliya, Dist -West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lal Mati Devi Wife of Rakesh Mahto Resident of village- Sugaodih, Po and Ps- Sugauli, dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the petitioner and others. It is also alleged that the victim was carrying Rs. 40,000/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79868 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026 2/3 committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that after knowing the truth, the informant has filed a compromise petition. He further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 01.09.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that from perusal of the statement of the victim, it is clear that the victim has specifically stated that this petitioner has committed wrong act with her in the room. As per the medical examination report, the victim is a minor, and from perusal of the medical examination report of the victim, she was aged about 17-18 years. The victim has stated before the medical board also that she was being raped by this petitioner, though the board has not given any objective finding regarding rape.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79868 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026 3/3

8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial so as to conclude the same in the time limit as provided under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T