IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41183 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Jaiky Yadav @ Jaiky Kumar S/O Amar Nath Rai Resident of Village- Mahuli, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kajal Kumari D/O Pragash Singh Resident of Village- Mahuli, P.O.- Kothia, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Aditya Raj, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 70(2), 127(2) BNS and Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per allegation, the victim is a minor girl, aged about 14 years, alleges in her fardbeyan that she had love and affection with the petitioner for two months. On 15.03.2025, the petitioner called her on the telephone and had physical relations with her. Thereafter, Rajesh Kumar and co-accused Takla @ Sourabh Yadav made her videograph. Co-accused Takla @ Sourabh Yadav threatened her to make the videograph viral, and the videograph was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41183 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 2/2 also shown to the mother and brother of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim is a major and the relation between the victim and the petitioner is consensual. 5. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the FIR shows that the victim is a minor. The FIR has also been lodged under the POCSO Act in addition to the relevant sections of the BNS. 6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected. Nirmal/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T