Dismissed¶¶20

Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Dec 2025CR. MISC./68921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC Cr. Misc. No.68921 of 2025 (decided 02-12-2025, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J): bail of Rahul Kumar Yadav REJECTED in Keoti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025 (BNS 2023 ss.126(2), 115(2), 352, 87, 3(5); POCSO ss.6, 8; charge sheet under BNS ss.96, 64(1) and POCSO ss.4, 6). Minor victim; alleged enticement and physical relationship; pregnancy and childbirth; custody since 23.04.2025; no antecedents; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account that the victim is a minor and that the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 96 & 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail; the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. ¶¶20

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner Rahul Kumar Yadav in Keoti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025, instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 87 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶¶13

Court's answer

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 68921 of 2025, oral order dated 02-12-2025 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J). Petitioner Rahul Kumar Yadav sought bail in Keoti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025 (District Darbhanga), instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 87 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act, on allegations that he enticed away the informant's minor daughter, was found with her at his gate and had earlier established physical relations with her. Petitioner, in custody since 23.04.2025 with no criminal antecedents, pleaded false implication and a consensual relationship, citing the victim's Section 183 BNSS 2023 statement (said to contain nothing against him), her pregnancy per medical report, the birth of a child, and his family's readiness to keep her with full honour and dignity. The APP and informant's counsel opposed, stressing that a minor's consent has no value in law and that a charge sheet stands filed under Sections 96 & 64(1) BNS 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act. Considering the victim's minority and the charge sheet, the Court declined bail and rejected the prayer, directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial without undue delay or unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68921 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2025 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga

¶3

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

¶4

Rahul Kumar Yadav Son of Rajesh Yadav Resident of Village- Darima, P.SKeoti, District- Darbhanga

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Vishnudeo Yadav son of Late Golai Yadav Resident of Village- Darima, P.SKeoti, District- Darbhanga

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 87 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

As per prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner enticed away the daughter of the informant. Later, his daughter was found at the main gate of the house of the petitioner. It is also alleged that petitioner had earlier established physical relation with the informant’s daughter.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68921 of 2025(3) dt.02-12-2025 2/3

¶16

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶17

It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was consensual physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim. As per statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that she has no whispered anything against the petitioner. As per medical report, victim was pregnant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim gave birth to a child and petitioner as well as his family members are ready to keep informant’s daughter with full honour and dignity.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is fervently submitted that since victim is minor, there is no value of consent in the eye of law. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case under Sections 96 & 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68921 of 2025(3) dt.02-12-2025 3/3

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the fact that victim is minor as also charge sheet being submitted under Sections 96 & 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is hereby rejected .

¶21

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶22

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶23

Raj Kishore/- U T

Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Kumar Ranjan @ Birendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arjun Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Ramakant Rai @ Ravi Kumar @ Ravikant Kumar @ Bhoti @ Moti Vs The State of Bihar

Vineet Kumar @ Chhotu @ Chhotoo Vs The State of Bihar

Dhiru Yadav @ Dhanukdhari Yadav @ Dhiraj Yadav @ Dhanush Dheeraj @ Dhanuk @ Dhanukdhari Dhanuk Vs The State of Bihar