Dismissed¶26

Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Apr 2025CR. MISC./66146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66146 of 2024; decided 02-04-2025; Justice S. B. Pd. Singh; petitioner Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto; Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 143 of 2024, Darbhanga; Sections 341, 342, 376, 323, 504, 506, 354(B)/34 IPC; Sections 4, 8 POCSO Act; minor victim; co-accused Anil Kumar; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; heinous nature of allegation; investigation still going on; surrender and regular bail to be considered on own merit.

What did the court decide?

Considering the heinous nature of the allegation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. ¶26

Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66146 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2024 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto Son of Sitaram Mahto Resident of Village - Madhpur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Runa Kumari Daughter of Ram Mahto R/o Village and Post - Madhpur, P.S.Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratnakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Choubey Jawahar ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 02-04-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

learned APP for the State.

¶15

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case no. 143 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 376, 323, 504, 506, 354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 of

¶16

POCSO Act

¶17

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that while the informant was on her way to her friend's house, she was intercepted near a garden by the petitioner and co-accused

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66146 of 2024(4) dt.02-04-2025 2/3

¶19

Anil Kumar, who forcibly took her inside the garden. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the informant with a knife, while co-accused Anil Kumar sexually assaulted her. They also threatened to kill her. Upon reaching home, the informant informed her mother about the incident. When the family members of the informant went to the house of accused persons, they allegedly assaulted and abused them.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. It is further submitted that both the parties are co-villager and there is case and counter case between them. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

¶21

Learned APP appearing for the state has

¶22

vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to caught hold the informant/victim and threatened at the point of dagger, where co-accused Anil Kumar committed rape with the victim. It is further contended that petitioner along with co-accused threatened her to kill. From perusal of para 2, 35,

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66146 of 2024(4) dt.02-04-2025 3/3

¶24

36, 37 of the Case Diary, it reflects that witnesses have supported the prosecution story. In the statement of the victim, recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C., she has supported the allegation levelled in FIR. Birth certificate is annexed with the case diary which shoes that she is minor at the time of alleged offence. Investigation is still going on.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶26

and considering the heinous nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶27

The petitioner is directed to surrender before

¶28

learned court below and pray for regular bail, which may be considered by the court below on its own merit, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

¶29

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶30

Nirajkrs/-

¶31

U T

Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Kumar @ Kishan Mahto v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Kumar Singh @ Kundan Singh @ Golu Vs The State of Bihar

Balbir Kumar @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Md Seraz Alam @ Md Seraj Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Sharma @ Amit Kr. Sharma Vs the State of Bihar

Yogendra Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar