IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4850 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Niraj Kumar S/o- Gorelal Singh R/v- Telauchh Ps- Chautham Dist- Khagaria ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rinku Kumari C/o- Late Bhuwaneshwar Ram R/v- Karor Ps-

Cheriabariyarpur Dist- Begusarai ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Md. Mobashir Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned counsel for the informant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.10.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge-SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 3(5), 304(2) of B.N.S., & Sections 3(1) (r) (s) (w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)

Act was rejected.

3. The case of the respondent in short is that the respondent and the appellant were in relationship since 2018. It is alleged that the appellant established physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. When the respondent got pregnant, she was taken to Khagaria Bazaar for MTP. It is further alleged that the appellant is not ready to marry her and it is alleged that the appellant and his family members abused her with caste name and assaulted her.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. From perusal of the FIR, it is alleged that the date of occurrence is 06.08.2025, however, the FIR was lodged on 01.09.2025 with a delay of one month and the delay in lodging the FIR is not explained. He also submits that the case of the respondent is that the appellant has established physical relationship on the false promise of marriage due to which she got pregnant. He also submits that it is a case of relationship between two majors and the appellant is ready to marry if he may be given provisional bail. He further submits that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since

11.09.2025.

5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.

for the State and submits that the respondent is pregnant and he has also shown the documents which goes to show that expected date of delivery (EDD) of the respondent is 13.2.26, it means within a day or two, she will give birth to a baby.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the Court is inclined to enlarge the appellant on provisional bail for three months and the appellant is directed to report after solemnizing the marriage with the victim/respondent for the confirmation of his bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai.

7. List this case on 11.05.2026.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

Sudhanshu/-

U T