Patna High Court

DHARMRAJ KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharmraj Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, including rape and sexual assault, on the false pretext of marriage. The prosecution alleges that he established physical relations with the informant (the victim) and later refused to marry her, with the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC supporting the charges. The petitioner’s counsel argued his innocence and clean antecedents, claiming he was falsely implicated. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the specific and serious nature of the accusations and the victim’s recorded statement. Considering the gravity of the offences, the direct accusations, and the victim’s statement, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and the specific nature of the accusations justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 376, 504, 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Indian Penal Code
POCSO Act
sexual offences
false pretext of marriage
bail jurisprudence
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89629 of 2024
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2024 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 DHARMRAJ KUMAR S/o- Chokat Sahani R/o- Chhapara Tola Dumari Ps-
                 Sugauli Dist- East Champaran

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XXX D/o- Mahur Sahni Village- Chhapra Tola Dumari Ps- Sugauli Dist-
                 East Champaran

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   27-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and

                   learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323,

                   376, 354B, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical

                   relations with the informant and later on, refused to solemnize

                   marriage.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89629 of 2024(5) dt.27-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                       committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in

                       this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean

                       antecedents.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and

                       learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the

                       prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and

                       submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific

                       accusation that he, on the false pretext of marriage, repeatedly

                       established physical relations with the victim and later on,

                       refused to solemnize marriage. The victim in her statement

                       recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has supported the

                       prosecution case.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

                       and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the

                       Cr.P.C., the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

                       is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…