Shatrudhan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1175 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2024 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== Shatrudhan Kumar Son of Late Jawahar Mahto @ Jawar Mahato Vill -Tarma Tola Jaffra PS -Bazirganj Distt -Gaya Presently Posted at kankarbagh Police station, Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rinku Devi Wife of Chandan Yadav village- Dighi, Ps- Murliganj, distMadhepura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Shrishti Rani, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Ms. Shrishti Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saket Gupta, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 163 of 2024 (arising out of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 448 of 2024 dated 17.06.2024) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 323, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner established physical relation with her daughter on false pretext of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1175 of 2025(4) dt.18-06-2025 2/2 false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Informant on the basis of materials available on record have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has filed the false Annexure-P2 contrary to the Date of Birth certificate of the victim which suggest that her Date of Birth is 01.01.2007 which suggest that on the date of occurrence the victim was minor and apart from that the petitioner has given his statement which is contrary to the record of the case and apart from that the petitioner established physical relation with the victim and she became pregnant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Special Case No. 163 of 2024 (arising out of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 448 of 2024 dated 17.06.2024) pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Court (POCSO), Patna.

7. Prayer is refused.

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