Patna High Court

JULMI YADAV @ JULESH YADAVversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 April 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Julmi Yadav was arrested on 5 October 2025 in connection with a FIR alleging that he, along with others, raped a girl aged about 16‑17 years and threatened her. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and a medical board report confirming the victim’s minority. The court examined the seriousness of the charge under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act, together with the victim’s testimony and medical evidence. Finding the allegations credible and the offence grave, the court refused the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a case of alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.
Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS and medical evidence justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 64(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4(1)

Subjects

bail
rape
minor
POCSO
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
criminal procedure
victim testimony
medical evidence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27841 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 JULMI YADAV @ JULESH YADAV S/o Sulendra Yadav R/o vill -
                 Kamlakhund, ward no. 7, P.S.- Ismilepur, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XX (Symbolic Name) D/o Mangal Yadav R/o vill - Chotti Malia, P.S.-
                  Gogri, Dist.- Khagaria
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2 27-04-2026                        Heard Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, learned counsel

                for the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the

                State.

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

                05.10.2025 in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No.256 of 2025,

                FIR dated 05.10.2025 registered for the offence under Section

                64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4(1)

                of POCSO Act.

                                 3. According to the prosecution, the informant alleged

                that the petitioner along with other accused persons committed rape

                upon her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to

                anyone.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27841 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                  been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation

                  as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has

                  not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R and the

                  petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 05.10.2025.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has

                  vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

                  submits that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and specific

                  allegation against the petitioner and statement of the victim was

                  recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has fully supported

                  the case of the prosecution and apart from that the medical board

                  has found the age of the victim to be about 16-17 years which

                  suggest that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was minor.

                                  6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

                  as well as nature of allegation supported by statement of the victim

                  and medical evidence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

                  bail in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No.256 of 2025, pending in

                  the Court of Special Judge, POCSO, Khagaria

                               7. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…