IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9292 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Lal Babu Mahto @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar S/o Late Ramphal Mahto R/o vill - Ladaura (Ladhauda), P.O. - Ladaura Pakri, P.S. - Turki (O.P) Kudhani, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Miss X D/o Pajee Bhagat R/o vill - Ladaura, P.s.- Turki (O.P), Kudhani, Distt. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Smiti Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ranajay Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Sudha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 29-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 registered for the offence under sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R is that the petitioner had entered the house of the informant and committed rape with her. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and as a matter of fact the petitioner had dispute with the brother of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9292 of 2025(4) dt.29-05-2025 2/2 informant/victim with respect to some financial transaction and it is due to such dispute between the parties that the present F.I.R has been lodged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the informant/victim has been medically examined during course of investigation and the medical report does not support the allegations as no spermatozoa has been found in the vaginal swab of the informant/victim. The petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2024 and undertakes to co-operate in the case/trial. 5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant on the ground that there is direct allegation of committing rape on the informant/victim and has supported the same in her statements recorded under Sections 161 as also 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the victim/informant is a minor. 6.In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and the application is rejected. 7. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Harsh/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T