IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48231 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ======================================================

Durgesh Kumar S/O Dharmdeo Ram R/O Village- Kanapa, PS- Ranitalab, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Patna

2. Shakuntla Devi W/o Bablu Ram R/o- Kanaba, P.S.- Ranitalab, District-

Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Shankar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

6 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4), 74, 75 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner is said to have tried to molest/outrage the modesty of the daughter of the informant finding her alone in house.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a labour and uncle of the informant by the village relationship and it is only due to previous dispute and village politics he has been made accused in this case. The real dispute was with regard to installation of a hand-pump regarding which a quarrel had taken place. It is true that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., she had made allegation that petitioner had misbehaved with her, however no allegation of sexual assault etc. was made. The trial has commenced and the victim has also been examined during the trial and her deposition has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit ,which clearly indicates that she has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 31.03.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail petition on the grounds of allegation made in the F.I.R.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that neither the victim has alleged any sexual assault etc. in her deposition before the Court nor in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Special POCSO Case No.106 of 2025, arising out of Rani Talab P.S. Case No.142 of 2025, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

Trivedi/- U T