Sital Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89971 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- ANTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sital Das Son of Late Umesh Jha Resident of Village - Chaksaho, P.S.- Patori, District - Samastipur, But now Sital Das has adopted the name of his Guru as his fathers name, that is, Son of Mohan Das, Resident of Village - Massudaa, P.S.- Jalia, District - Ahjmer (Rajasthan).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

X Son of Late Islam Hajam Resident of Village - Aati, P.S.- Aati, District - Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2026 Heard Mr. Priya Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 26.02.2025 in connection with Anti P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner has committed rape upon the minor daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89971 of 2025(6) dt.10-07-2026 2/2 fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the impugned order that on the date of hearing of the bail petition, the victim had appeared suo-moto before the learned trial court and stated that the petitioner has committed rape upon her. Apart from that, the date of birth of victim is 01.01.2009 which suggest that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances o the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Anti P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 pending in the court of learned ACJM II, Gaya Ji.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T