← Library
Patna High Court/85703/2025rejected

Suman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-25Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85703 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- TIKAPATTI District- Purnia ====================================================== Suman Kumar S/O Binay Mandal @ Vinay Kumar Mandal R/O Village - Mejhandi , P.S- Tikapatti , Dist.- Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nilam Kumari D/O Papu Mandal R/O Village - Mejhandi , P.S- Tikapatti , Dist.- Purnia ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Advocate :

Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 07.09.2025 in connection with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025, FIR dated 27.08.2025 registered for the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.08.2025 at about 12.30 A.M, he made physical relationship with the informant on false pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85703 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026 2/3 alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 07.09.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that medical report of the victim suggest that on the date of medical examination she was pregnant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of allegation supported by statement of the victim and medical report, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with District & Additional Session Judge-1st Purnea pending in the Court of Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025.

7. Prayer is refused.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85703 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026 3/3