Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66787 (PAT)

Tarkeshwar Bin @ Tarkeshwar Mukhiya v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./55497/2025 · 2025-08-12

Rajiv Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55497 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Tarkeshwar Bin @ Tarkeshwar Mukhiya S/o- Late Suresh Bin @ Suresh Mukhiya Village- Balkahawa P.S.- Chiutahawa District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. X D/o- Chhangur Nishad Village- Balkahawa Ps- Chiutahawa Dist- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Chetna, Advocate : Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 12-08-2025 Heard Ms. Chetna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 64 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., lodged on 16.11.2024 by the informant XYZ. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant (a minor) alleged that this petitioner took her to a sugarcane field, firstly tried to outrage the modesty and then raped her. She anyhow came out of the sugarcane field and informed the family members which led to the F.I.R. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55497 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which creates doubt. However, learned APP has taken this Court to the learned Sessions Judge order to show that the date of birth of the minor girl is 2008, she has narrated the ordeal which has followed the F.I.R., rape charge has been made against this petitioner. 5. Considering the submission of the parties as also the charge that has come against the petitioner, no relief can be extended to him. 6. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T