Dismissed¶5

Xxx v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jul 2026CR. MISC./29654/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Miscellaneous No.29654 of 2025; decision 16-07-2026; Sandeep Kumar, J; cancellation of anticipatory bail; bail not cancelled; application rejected; POCSO Act Section 8; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 329(3), 115(2), 110, 76, 303(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5); Kako (Bheladar) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2024; Jehanabad; A.B.P. No. 1769 of 2024; Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO); non-service of notice upon informant; no offence under POCSO Act made out on FIR; no infirmity in bail order; observations limited to present application; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Having gone through the FIR, the Court found that no offence under the POCSO Act is made out and therefore found no infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to opposite party no. 2. ¶4

Xxx Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29654 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2024 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad

¶3

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

¶4

XXX D/O Sri Uday Yadav Through her Father Sri Uday Prasad @ Sri Uday Yadav, S/O Chandra Dev Yadav. R/O Mai Mathia, P.S.- Bhelabar, Dist.Jehanabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Patna

¶8

Rohit Prakash @ Guddu S/O Chhotu Yadav R/O Mai Mathia, P.S.- Kako, Bhelabar, Dist.- Jehanabad.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 16-07-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶14

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

¶15

2. This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, Jehanabad vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 1769 of 2024 in connection with Kako (Bheladar) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 110, 76, 303(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29654 of 2025(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/2

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 on the ground that no notice was served upon the informant as the offence was under POCSO Act.

¶18

4. I have gone through the FIR and found that no offence under the POCSO Act is made out. Therefore, I do not any infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party no.2. Further the petitioner has not been able to show any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶19

5. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

¶20

6. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present application and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶21

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶22

shalini/Pawan

¶23

U T

Xxx v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxx 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

Pragati Indian Road Lines Vs The State of Bihar

Bibi Nujhat @ Bibi Nuzhar Vs The State of Bihar

Bibi Shahida Khatoon @ Shahida Khatoon Vs the State of Bihar

Sri Yamuna Tiwari @ Vrajavihari Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar