Patna High Court
Vasir Nadav @ Vasire Aalam @ Nasir Aalam @ Wazire Alam @ Wazir NadafversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Summary
The petitioner, Vasir Nadav, was charged under Sections 363, 366(A), 379, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting and intimidating a minor girl. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and that no sexual act was committed. The trial court had earlier rejected his bail application on 23 July 2025, and the petitioner filed a second bail petition. The High Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the prosecution’s case, and the earlier order, and found no merit to revisit the prior decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, reiterating that the petitioner remains in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
- Whether the earlier bail denial can be reviewed on the ground of changed circumstances.
- Whether the gravity of the alleged offences precludes the grant of regular bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366(A), 379, 420, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- theft
- criminal intimidation
- high court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11448 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vasir Nadav @ Vasire Aalam @ Nasir Aalam @ Wazire Alam @ Wazir Nadaf
Son of Yunus Nadaf @ Yunas Nadaf @ Yunas Nadal R/o village -
Madheshara @ Ward No.- 9, Madhesra, P.S.- Sonbarsa (Old) @ Bhutahi
(New), Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Son of Radhe Shyam Thakur R/o village - Fulparasi, Ward No.- 13, P.S.-
Sahiyara, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No.
28 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 366
(A), 379, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 8 of
POCSO Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 23.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 15663 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11448 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
Shri Amit Kumar and learned counsel for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail
in connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No.
28 of 2024 registered for the offence under
Sections 363, 366(A), 379, 420, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of
the POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner is accused of establishing
relationship with a minor victim by wrongly
disclosing his religion and thereafter he took
her away and when the girl refused to marry
him then he has given her something
because of which she fainted and thereafter
when she gained her consciousness she was
at her parental home.
4. The petitioner is in custody
since 15.10.2024.
5. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case as he has not done
any sexual act with the victim and therefore
he may be granted bail.
6. Learned counsel for the
informant has vehemently opposed the
application of the petitioner for grant of bail
and has submitted that the petitioner had
taken away the minor victim after making
false promise to her.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
9. If the trial of the petitioner is
delayed due to the fault of the prosecution
then the petitioner may renew his prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11448 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
bail.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the trial, charges has been framed.
5. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds
no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this
application for regular bail stands rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…