Patna High Court
Anil Yadav @ Anil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court refused bail, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the specific charges warranted denial of the petition.
Summary
Anil Yadav applied for bail after being arrested on 26‑09‑2025 in connection with a FIR alleging attempted rape of a minor, offences under Sections 126(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner claimed the case was fabricated because he had earlier given a loan of Rs. 15,000 to the informant’s family and alleged a four‑day delay in filing the FIR. The informant and the State contended that the petitioner was caught in a compromising position with the informant’s daughter, who is a 12‑year‑old minor, and that her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. corroborated the prosecution’s case. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s age, and the specific charges, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the bail application of the accused in a case involving alleged attempted rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and related offences?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 126(2), 351(2), 352, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- POCSO Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- false allegations
- loan dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16618 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- Sarbahada District- Gaya
======================================================
Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar Son of Ramlakhan Prasad @ Ram Lakhan Prasad
Yadav R/o Village - Lachhu Bigha, P.S.- Sarbahada, District - Gaya ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ms. YYY Wife of XXX R/o Village - Khukhri Tola, Prem Bigha, P.O. -
Khukari, P.S. and Dist. - Gayaji.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Durgesh Nandan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
26.09.2025, in connection with Sarbahada P.S. Case No. 117 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 24.09.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S.,
2023 and Section 3(1)(r((s) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 8/12
of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has
tried to commit rape upon the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16618 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and
the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the
F.I.R. In fact, the petitioner had given the loan of Rs. 15,000/-
three years ago to the family of the informant so he has lodged
the false case against the petitioner. He further submits that the
date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 20.09.2025 but the
present F.I.R. was instituted after delay of four days without
giving any explanation of delay.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner was apprehended in compromising position with the
daughter of the informant and apart from the aforesaid the
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr. P.C./183 of the B.N.S.S. in which she has fully supported the
case of the prosecution and the date of birth of the victim is
24.08.2013 which suggests that the victim is only 12 years of
old at the time of occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and there is specific and direct allegation against the
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with Sarbahada P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025 pending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16618 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
in the Court of learned exclusive Special Judge, POCSO-cum-
Additional Sessions Judge-VIIth, Gaya Ji.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U
Checking your session…