Patna High Court
Manish Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the alleged rape attempt warrants the continuation of custody.
Summary
Manish Kumar Yadav applied for regular bail under sections 76 and 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with two FIRs alleging that he attempted to force himself on the 20‑year‑old daughter of the informant. The prosecution contended that the petitioner had previously attempted a similar act in 2024, and the informant’s daughter stated that the alleged act was a rape disguised as a prospective marriage. The petitioner argued that he is the son‑in‑law of the informant, that the allegations are false, and cited an FIR filed by his wife as proof of marriage. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the rape‑attempt allegation and the repeat nature of the accusations. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, rejecting the application and directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under sections 76 and 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged attempt to commit rape and the existence of two FIRs.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 76, 87
Subjects
- regular bail
- attempted rape
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- sections 76 and 87
- criminal procedure
- sexual offences
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13347 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- Patour District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Manish Kumar Yadav S/o- Barun Kumar Yadav @ Barun Yadav @ Varun
Yadav Village- Basatpur, P.S- Pator, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Vibha Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Pator P.S. Case no.120
of 2025, registered under sections 76 and 87 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the petitioner herein came to his house and tried to force
himself upon his 20 year old daughter. It is further stated that in
the year 2024 also, a similar occurrence had taken place for
which an FIR being Pator P.S. Case no. 68 of 2024 was
registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner happens to be the son-in-law of the informant who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13347 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
was married to Neha Kumari. The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the case. In evidence of the fact that marriage has
taken place between the informant’s daughter and the petitioner,
the petitioner refers to an FIR at Annexure-2 lodged by Neha
Kumari being Pator P.S. Case no. 68 of 2024. The petitioner is
in custody since 6.12.2025 and has no other case except the two
cases both lodged by the informant and his daughter. He
undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State, who submits that there is direct allegation against
the petitioner of having attempted to commit rape on the
daughter of the informant. Further referring to the FIR at
Annexure-2, learned APP for the State submits that it is not an
evidence of marriage between the parties but in fact the
daughter of the informant while lodging the FIR had
categorically stated therein that under the garb of future
marriage, the petitioner had committed rape on her.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR wherein the petitioner is for the second time alleged to
have attempted to commit rape on the daughter of the informant,
the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13347 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.