Patna High Court
Vinod YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the allegations of rape of a minor were substantiated by the FIR and medical evidence.
Summary
Vinod Yadav was arrested on 13 June 2024 in connection with a case alleging that he raped his nine‑year‑old daughter, offences punishable under Section 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner applied for bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the FIR and a medical report that corroborated the rape allegation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the seriousness of the charge and the supporting medical evidence warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the court refused the bail petition and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged rape of a minor under Section 376(AB) IPC and the POCSO Act
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(AB)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- Section 376(AB) IPC
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28127 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2024 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Vinod Yadav S/O Late Thakur Yadav R/O Vill.- Kuroom Tola, P.S.- Sugauli,
District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Victim X W/O YYY R/O Vill.- Kuroom Tola, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East
Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Raghav Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Gulnar Begum, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
13.06.2024 in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 259 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 12.06.2024 for the offences punishable under
Section 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code and 4/6 of the
POCSO Act.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner
committed rape of his own daughter who is 9 years of age.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28127 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/2
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 that he has committed
rape upon his own 9 years old daughter and the medical report
of the victim also confirms the same.
6. Considering the nature of allegation as alleged in
the FIR supported by the medical evidence, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Suguali P.S.
Case No. 259 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO
Cases), East Champaran, Motihari.
7. Prayer is refused.
8. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite
and conclude the trial at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…