Mukul Yadav @ Mukul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 426 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 75, 76, 78, 137(2), 62, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(Dha), 3 (1) (Da), 3(1) w (I), 3 (1) (w), (ii), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) and Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)

¶18

As per the allegation, when the daughter of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84550 of 2025(6) dt.27-04-2026 2/3

¶20

informant along with other girls were on way to school, the petitioner and co-accused Bhawani Yadav are alleged to have come riding on a motorcycle and as soon as the daughter of the informant and other girls were passing through them, they started touching her and tried to forcibly got her seated on a motorcycle and tried to take her away, in course of which, other girls surrounded the motorcycle, then this petitioner and coaccused Bhawani Yadav started teasing the daughter of the informant. Upon alarm being raised, the accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that the informant as well as his family members were also abused by the caste name.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2025, charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering. The alleged abuse was not made in public place within the public view so as to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. It has further been submitted that actually there was some hot talk between the girls and the petitioner, which has resulted into exaggerated version of the allegation by the informant. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶22

Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84550 of 2025(6) dt.27-04-2026 3/3

¶24

counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named, petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Exclusive Judge POCSO Act, Patna, in connection with Naubatpur Case No. 426 of 2025.

¶26

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶27

Pawan/-

¶28

U T

Mukul Yadav @ Mukul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Yadav @ Mukul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kishan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Himanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sikandra Rai Vs The State of Bihar