Gopal Gupta @ Gopal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81698 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani ====================================================== Gopal Gupta @ Gopal Kumar S/O Raj Kumar R/o -Narahi P.S - Andhramath, District - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

X D/O Y R/O Village- Dudhaila Ward no. 14, The SHO, Andhramath P.S. under District- Madhubani in connection with Andhramath P.S. case No.- 98/2025, District Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Ms.Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Andhramath P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 351(3), 351(2) of the BNS, Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Protection of Child Marriage Act.

3. On the basis of the victim's written application, it is alleged that the petitioner enticed away the victim at the pretext of marriage and sexually exploited her. The petitioner later brought her to his house, where she was again sexually exploited, and thereafter she was driven out. His family members assaulted her, stating that she belonged to a different caste. Despite several panchayats, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81698 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026 2/2 matter was not resolved. On 06.06.2025, the petitioner married another woman and threatened the victim to kill her family members.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The victim did not support the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. She, in her statement, has stated that she had love and affection with the petitioner and she has solemnized marriage with him.

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 the daughter of the informant has solemnized marriage with the petitioner. Out of wedlock of the petitioner, the victim became pregnant and thereafter gave birth to a male child. The petitioner is not ready to keep the victim with him. The life of the victim as well as the child has been ruined due to act of the petitioner.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T