IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67786 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2025 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Satendra Yadav S/O Surendra Yadav R/O Vill.- Mahadevpur, P.O. and P.S.- Tarari, Dist.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Prem Shankar Choubey @ Bittu Choubey S/O Satendra Choubey R/O Vill.- Mahadevpur, P.S.- Tarari, Dist.- Bhojpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 08-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 74 of B.N.S., 2023 as well as under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that on 18.07.2025 at about 05:50 p.m., his daughter came back home from the temple and the informant asked her to go and get a Sumo tablet. Accordingly, the victim went to the shop of the petitioner when he grabbed her and kissed her on both cheeks and inappropriately touched her. Further, the petitioner about Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67786 of 2025(2) dt.08-10-2025 2/3 two years back had molested a child but the issue was resolved informally. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the informant would have asked his daughter to go to the shop of the petitioner when he himself could have gone to buy the tablet. It is also submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner earlier also had molested a child, but then the issue was resolved informally, as such, the informant was knowing what kind of a person the petitioner was, as such, why he would asked his daughter to go to the shop of the petitioner to buy the medicine. It is further submitted that the petitioner runs a grocery shop and a medicine shop is adjacent to the house of the informant but then, it is alleged that the victim instead of going to the medicine shop went to the shop of the petitioner for purchasing medicine. 5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of committing inappropriate act with a minor girl aged about nine years. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that father would institute an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67786 of 2025(2) dt.08-10-2025 3/3 FIR with false allegation knowing that the allegation would bring disrepute to his daughter. It is also submitted that the investigation is continuing. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Tarari P.S. Case No.130 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Court of POCSO Act-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Bhojpur at Ara. Sanjay/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T