IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54406 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2024 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Chandan Kumar S/o Binod Mahto Resident of village- Malangiya, PS- Rahika, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajiv Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Kumar Singh R/o vill - Malangiya, P.s. - Rahika, Distt.- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Thakur For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh For the Informant : Ms. Minakshi Kumari Mr. Munish Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as informant and learned APP for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 68 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and 67(A) of I.T. Act. 3. As per allegation, the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant’s daughter and recorded her private photos and videos. When informant fixed his daughter’s marriage, the petitioner sent these recordings to the groom’s family, resulting in cancellation of the wedding. It is further alleged that when the informant confronted the accused, the petitioner along with other co- accused persons assaulted him and threatened him to kill. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54406 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It has further been submitted that the occurrence took place on 08.01.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 01.04.2024 i.e. there is delay of about two and half months without giving proper explanation for the delay. The petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and is in custody since 21.05.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the informant in his re-statement along with other witnesses in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, have supported the prosecution case and the victim has stated in her statement that petitioner has made physical relation with her on threat of making her obscene photographs viral. It has further been submitted that the petitioner sent her recordings to the groom’s family due to which her wedding got cancelled and her entire life ruined. 6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. priyanka/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T