Raj Kumar Paswan @ Raj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14512 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-546 Year-2020 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur

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

Raj Kumar Paswan @ Raj Kumar Son of Gagandev Paswan Resident of Village- Anandpur, Kharauni, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Prasoon Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 546 of 2020 for the offence registered under sections 363, 366(A), 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 27.09.2020, in the midnight, a Bolero came to the doorstep of the informant and later, allegation is that accused persons including this petitioner took the victim on the point of gun. Upon raising alarm, they threatened of dire consequences. This led to the FIR.

¶16

The victim girl subsequently appeared and echoing the statement made in the FIR and further narrated that she was

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14512 of 2026(5) dt.01-07-2026 2/3

¶18

taken to Cuttack station and then to Kolkata where she stayed for a month. Later, she was left at Gaya Station whereafter, she came and gave her statement.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the girl was major and went on her own but later, due to pressure by the family members, have narrated a different story. This petitioner do not have criminal antecedent but found himself implicated.

¶20

Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that the case has been found to be true, is of the year 2020, the petitioner had knowledge of his implication in the present case as he filed anticipatory bail application in the year 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur which was rejected. He sat for five years and then preferred second anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Muzaffarpur which again came to be rejected. As such, he does not deserve bail.

¶21

Considering the submissions of the parties, though this Court has recorded that the girl is major as per the records, this petitioner also has no criminal antecedent, however, considering the delay of six years after the FIR was lodged, relief cannot be extended to him.

¶22