SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 475

PATNA HIGH COURT
Rahul Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CR. REV.-505/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.505 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhepura

======================================================

Rahul Kumar Manju Devi Wife of Shivnarayan Mukhiya @ Shivnandan

Mukhiya Resident of village-Madhuban, P.S.-Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.),

District-Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar bihar

2. Anshu Kumari Daughter of Raghunandan Mandal village- Madhuban, Ps-

Madhepura, (Bharrahi Op), Dist- Madhepura

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anant Kumar, APP

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Kr. Singh, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

02. The instant revision petition has been filed for

setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 22.01.2025 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2024 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court)

Madhepura whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge

(Children Court) Madhepura dismissed the appeal of the

petitioner and also to set aside the order dated 30.09.2024

passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura rejecting the

prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case

##PAGE2##

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.505 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026

2/10

No. 114 of 2024 arising out of Madhepura Mahila PS Case No.

34 of 2024 for the offences under Section 126(2), 115(2), 65(1),

352 of the BNS and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act.

03. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the

institution of the present petition is that the opposite party no. 2

lodged a case vide Madhepura Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024

under Section 126(2), 115(2), 65(1), 352 of the BNS and

Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act with allegation that 6 months ago

in a field the informant and petitioner met and the petitioner

made physical relation with her. The petitioner continued

making relations with her and when she told the petitioner to

marry, he abused and assaulted her and refused to marry. When

she became pregnant, the petitioner again abused and assaulted

her and in panchayati the petitioner and his family members

refused to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no. 2. The

petitioner/child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) was taken

in custody on 02.08.2024. The CICL moved before the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura for grant of bail but his

prayer was rejected and his petition for bail was dismissed vide

order dated 30.09.2024. The CICL preferred an appeal which

also came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge

##PAGE3##

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.505 of 2025 dt.29-01-2026

3/10

(Children’s Court) Madhepura. The CICL approached this Court

impugning the aforesaid two orders.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is falsely implicated in this case due to ill motive of

the victim and village politics. The FIR has been lodged after

much delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation. The

petitioner was declared juvenile on 21.08.2024 by the JJB,

Madhepura and the age of the petitioner was 15 years 06 months

and 30 days on the date of occurrence and has got no criminal

antecedent. The age of the victim is about 13 years. Learned

counsel further submits that the orders of the learned Courts

below are bad in the eye of law as well as on facts. The Courts

have not considered about false implication of the CICL and the

fact that he has been deprived of care and protection of his

family by placing him in custody. There is no possibility of

petitioner doing any harm to the victim or any of the witnesses.

The social investigation report and social background report

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top