Sonu Yadav @ Rambhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3975 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2021 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Sonu Yadav @ Rambhu Yadav S/O Satyanarayan Yadav @ Saten Yadav R/O Village- Bela Ward No. 7, P.S- Basmatiya, Distt.- Araria. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sangita Devi W/O Vijen Yadav R/O Village- Dibaha, Ward NO. 2, Chhataur, Supaul.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Madhuri Lata learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 18.04.2021 in connection with POCSO Case No. 25 of 2021 arising out of Chattapur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 17.04.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 17 of POCSO Act and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 366A, 376, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3975 of 2025(5) dt.04-04-2025 2/3 rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 4443 of 2022 vide order dated 27.03.2023 by this Court and again the petitioner filed a bail application in Cr. Misc. No. 52916 of 2024 vide order dated 02.08.2024 which was withdrawn by the petitioner.

4. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner committed rape upon the victim. The statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she categorically supports the case of the prosecution apart from that the medical evidence also supports the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent/ is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. Vide order dated 14.02.2025 a report was called with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 18.02.2025 reveals that out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, six prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for the examination of the Investigating Officer and the lady Medical Officer.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

8. Considering the nature of allegation in the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3975 of 2025(5) dt.04-04-2025 3/3 supported by the victim in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the medical evidence as well as the report of the trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 25 of 2021 arising out of Chattapur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 pending in the Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Supaul.

9. Prayer is refused.

10. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.) Jyoti Kumari/- U T