IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12361 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2022 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Mithilesh Sahni @ Mithilesh Tehwariya @ Mithlesh Kumar Sahni, Son of Ram Chandra Sahni, Resident of Village- Tehwara, P.S.- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Usha Kumari, D/o- Vinod Yadav, R/o Village - Koyala Astahn, P.S. - Keoti, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shubham Sourav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 6 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kewati P.S. Case no.417 of 2022 registered under sections 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the I.T. Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she was raped by the petitioner. Though subsequently the petitioner agreed to marry her, however the marriage did not take place and he continued to commit rape on her threatening to make the objectionable videos of her viral. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12361 of 2026(6) dt.13-08-2026 2/3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is an unexplained delay of 2 years in filing of the complaint case which was subsequently registered as an F.I.R. From the contents of complaint/F.I.R. itself it would transpire that the parties were ready for marriage and it was only on account of marriage having fallen apart that the false allegations of rape etc. have been made against the petitioner. The informant refused to get herself medically examined. Charge has been framed in the learned trial Court and four prosecution witnesses have been examined. No case against the petitioner is made out. The petitioner is in custody since 6.12.2025 and is ready to abide by any conditions which may be laid by this Court for his release on bail. 5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having committed rape on the informant and the said allegations have been supported by her in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Trial having commenced in the learned trial Court, the application for bail be rejected. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12361 of 2026(6) dt.13-08-2026 3/3 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of rape against the petitioner which was supported by the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and trial having commenced with four prosecution witnesses having been examined in course of the trial, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. avinash/- (Partha Sarthy, J) U T