Patna High Court
Rohit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail, finding that the prosecution had not sufficiently demonstrated the elements of kidnapping or "enticing away" and that the petitioner’s custody was not necessary pending trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Prohibition Act, 2006. The prosecution alleged that he, along with co‑accused, kidnapped two teenage girls (aged about 14½ and 15 years) for the purpose of marriage. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that he was in a consensual relationship with one of the girls, that the marriage was solemnised lawfully, and that there was no "enticing away" or "taking away" as required under Section 96 of the B.N.S. He also highlighted the victims’ near‑majority age, lack of any assault allegation, and his clean record. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. After considering the statements of the victims and the arguments, the court held that bail should be granted on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail for offences under the B.N.S., POCSO Act and Child Marriage Prohibition Act.
- Whether the elements of kidnapping and "enticing away" under Section 96 of the B.N.S. are established.
- Whether the age of the victims and the nature of the alleged relationship preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- child marriage
- POCSO
- section 96
- minor
- consensual relationship
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1980 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Rohit Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh Prasad R/o
Village - Koshiyawan, P.S - Ekangarsarai, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mrs. X Wife of Mr. Y R/o Village - Goriya Bigha, Jurior Tola, P.S. - Hilsa,
Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sonu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 534
of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., under Section 4/6 of the
POCSO Act and under Section 9 of the Child Marriage
Prohibition Act, 2006.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 07.08.2025, the
daughters of the informant victim (x) and victim (y) aged about
14 ½ years and 15 years respectively went out of the house. A
thorough search was made by the informant and during the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1980 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
course of search it transpired that this petitioner along with co-
accused persons Satish Kumar and Sanarjit Kumar had
kidnapped her daughters for the purpose of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. It has further been submitted that the allegation of
kidnapping is not true. The petitioner was in fact in a consensual
relationship with one of the victims, who has stated that she was
involved in a love affair with the petitioner and out of her own
free will, she joined the petitioner’s company and they
solemnized their marriage at a temple in Delhi. When the
informant assured them that their marriage would be conducted
lawfully, they returned from Delhi. While the victim, (y), the
sister of victim (x), has stated that she and victim (x) went to the
railway station without informing anyone, thereafter, victim (x)
went along with the petitioner, who gave her some money to
visit her maternal grandmother’s house. It has also been
submitted that there is no element of “enticing away” and
“taking away” against the petitioner so as to constitute the
offence under Section 96 of the B.N.S. Moreover the victim is
on the verge of majority and she was not of such tender age so
as to not understand the consequences of her action. Both the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1980 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
victims have not alleged any physical/sexual assault against the
petitioner. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has
clean criminal antecedent and is in custody since 10.08.2025
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of
the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties as well as the respective statement of the victims
recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S., let the petitioner
above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned,
Nalanda, in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 534 of 2025.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…