Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86205/2025bail rejected

Dipak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-06Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86205 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dipak Kumar S/O Akhilesh Mahto Resident of Village- Bariyariya, P.SSangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

XYZ W/O Jitendra Mahto R/O Village- Jalaha, P.S- Sangrampur, Distt.- E. Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case no. 275 of 2025 registered under section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with her nine year old minor daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There are contradictions in her statement recorded under section 183 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86205 of 2025(4) dt.06-05-2026 2/2 B.N.S.S. as also the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The medical report does nor support the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 12.7.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR wherein the petitioner is said to have forcibly established physical relations with the nine year old minor daughter of the informant together with the allegations having been supported in the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T