Ranjan Kumar @ Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84342 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-419 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Son of Virendra Choudhary @ Vilendra Choudhary Resident of Village - Jagpur, P.S. - Makhdumpur, Dist. - Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X C/o Sanjay Kumar R/o Village - Dayabigha, P.S. - Makdhumpur, Dist. - Jehanabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 21.06.2025 in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 419 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.06.2025 at about 10.00 AM after finding the victim the petitioner entered into her house. It is further alleged that the petitioner tried to rape the victim in the meantime the father of the victim came there and petitioner tried to fled away. But with the help of villager they caught the petitioner and handed over him to the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84342 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that due to village politics petitioner has been implicated in the present case.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the basis of material available on record and the case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that on the same day i.e., 20.06.2025, the medical examination was conducted and the doctor opined that there is recent sign of sexual assault and rape has also been committed.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 419 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum Special Judge (POCSO), Jehanabad.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T