Patna High Court

Vicky YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Vicky Yadav, was arrested on 17-11-2025 in connection with a POCSO case alleging abduction and sexual relationship with a minor girl. He applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated, noting that the victim refused a medical test. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the FIR, the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. The court examined the seriousness of the charges under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the BNSS and the victim's testimony. Considering the nature of the allegations and the minor status of the victim, the court declined to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner's application.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita in a POCSO case.
Whether the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the minor status of the victim justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(3), 183

Subjects

bail
POCSO
child sexual offence
abduction
minor
BNSS
Section 137
Section 140
Section 183

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27216 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2025 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Vicky Yadav Son of Late Supan Yadav @ Ghanshyam Yadav Resident of
                 Village - Porahi, Police Station - Harnaut, District - Nalanda.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XX Wife of YY Resident of Porai, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sudish Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Arun Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-04-2026                    Heard Mr. Sudish Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   17-11-2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 08 of 2026

                   arising out of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 509 of 2025, for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of

                   Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                 3. According to prosecution case, on 01-11-2025 at

                   about 2.00 A.M. while the informant woke up for defecation,

                   she did not find her daughter at home. Thereafter, she got

                   awaken her family members and started to search her daughter

                   but she could not find her. In the morning, it came to knowledge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27216 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
                                            2/3




          of the informant that the petitioner took away her daughter by

          alluring her.

                        4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is a person of clean antecedent. The allegation as

          levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is false and fabricated

          one. The petitioner has committed no offence as alleged in the

          FIR. As a matter of fact, there was love affairs between the

          petitioner and the victim. It has also been submitted that the

          victim refused to go for medical test.

                        5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that

          as per FIR, the petitioner abducted the daughter of the

          informant. The statement of the victim was recorded under

          Section-183 of the BNSS, in which, she has stated that the

          petitioner has abducted her and apart from that, the petitioner

          established physical relationship with the victim in a room at

          Ara for 15 days. The date of birth of the victim is 17-09-2012

          which suggests that on the date of occurrence, the victim was

          minor.

                        6. Considering the nature of allegation as made in the

          FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section-183

          of the BNSS coupled with the fact that on the date of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27216 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      occurrence, the victim was minor, I am not inclined to grant bail

                      to the petitioner and accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
A.K.V.//-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…