IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30272 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Rakib @ Md. Raghib S/o Nurul @ Nurul Haque R/o vill- Pathamari, Thana- Pathamari, District- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. XYZ D/o K R/o vill - Kalu Ghat, ward no. 1, P.s.- Thakurganj, Distt.- Kishanganj ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 08-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. In the present case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 registered for the offences under Sections 4, 12 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution case, the minor informant used to take tuition from the petitioner in the coaching being run by him. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used to sexually assault the minor informant and committed rape with her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30272 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 2/2 the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The FIR has been registered after delay of 18 days without any satisfactory explanation. The real fact of the case is that the parents of the informant do not want to make payment of tuition fee and have lodged the present false case though the petitioner has not committed any of the alleged offeces. The medical report did not support the prosecution case against the petitioner. The petitioner is having cleant antecedent. 5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that in the FIR itself the informant has mentioned that a panchayati was being conducted and for this reason, the FIR has been lodged after delay. 6. Having regard to the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I do not think it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. DKS/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T