IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20698 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Jaiky Yadav @ Jaiky Kumar Son of Amar Nath Ray Resident of Village - Mahuli, Police Station - Didarganj, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. X Daughter of Y Resident of Village - Mahuli, Police Station - Didarganj, District - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 03-07-2026 Heard Mr.Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aditya Raj, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Harendra Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 20.01.2026 in connection with Special Case No.107(A) of 2025 arising out of Didarganj P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 30.03.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64,70(2),127(2) of BNS and Sections 4,6,8,10,12 of 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20698 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026 2/3 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 also shown to the mother and brother of the informant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated inn the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. In fact the petitioner was in love with the victim girl and he has made physical relation with the consent of the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the medical report that the victim is only 14 years which suggests that on the date of occurrence the victim was minor, apart from that, the medical report also confirms that she has been sexually assaulted by the accused persons including the petitioner. Further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but fairly Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20698 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026 3/3 submits that the petitioner is on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition. 6. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner in the FIR supported by the medical evidence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Special Case No.107(A) of 2025 arising out of Didarganj P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, (Rape and POCSO Act), Patna. 7. Prayer is refused. Nitesh/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T