Patna High Court
Guddu Yadav @ Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to both petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Guddu Yadav (20 years old) and Ramkrit Yadav, were charged under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 74, 75, 78(2) of the BNSS Act, sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, and section 3(i)(r)(s)(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly molesting a minor victim. They pleaded innocence, arguing that the younger petitioner was a recent adult and subject to natural psychological and physiological changes, and that the co‑accused had no connection to the offence. The State opposed pre‑arrest bail, contending that the victim’s statement did not support the prosecution. The Court, relying on the Madras High Court decision in Vijayalakshmi & Anr. vs. State Rep. (2021) SCC OnLine Mad 317, held that the petitioners’ age and clean antecedent warranted bail. Accordingly, both were released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS Act and verification of any other criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to accused persons charged with sexual offences against a minor and offences under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s age and alleged psychological immaturity justify bail despite serious charges.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS Act undermines the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 352, 482(2), 74, 75, 78(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(i)(r)(s)(2)(va)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- sexual offences
- child protection
- SC/ST Act
- age factor
- psychological immaturity
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45436 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2025 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar S/O Ramkrit Yadav R/O Vill.- Chandraheta,
Kerap, P.s.- Rafiganj, Dist.- Aurangabad
2. Ramkrit Yadav S/O Prayag Yadav R/O Vill.- Chandraheta, Kerap, P.s.-
Rafiganj, Dist.- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bindiya Kumari D/O Indal Paswan R/O Vill.- Chandraheta, P.s.- Rafiganj,
Dist.- Aurangabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalbahadur Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Lalbahadur Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Usha Kumari 1,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 181/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections
126(2),115(2),352,74,75,78(2) of the BNS; Sections 8,12 of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section
3(i)(r)(s)(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on
23.04.2025, victim along with another minor victim had gone
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45436 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
for defecation, when petitioner no.1 namely Guddu Yadav
forcibly caught hold of victim, molested her and attempted to
drag her away. On resistance and alarm raised by the victims,
villagers rushed to the spot, whereupon the accused fled away
after issuing threats. Subsequently, when the informant’s family
protested at the house of the accused, co-accused Ramkrit Yadav
along with his family members allegedly assaulted the
informant’s family and hurled abusive and caste-based insults
and during inquiry both the victims have supported the
prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 183
of the BNSS Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner
no.1 has just emerged as an adult, being aged about 20 years and
natural attraction for the opposite sex cannot be denied coupled
with the several psychological and physiological change person
undergo. He submitted that the petitioner no.2 is nowhere
connected with the alleged offence and is innocent. The
petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, the
petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45436 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. However, he submitted that
the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS
has not supported the prosecution story.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR and the fact that the petitioner, who is about 20
years old, has just emerged as an adult, going through
psychological, physiological, as well as, biological changes and
infatuation and attraction for the opposite sex is natural and he
may be unaware of the rigors of his wrong doing. Consideration
in this regard can be made in light of the law laid down by the
Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr. vs.
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in (2021)
SCC OnLine Mad 317. The petitioner no.2, above named, also
having clean antecedent, are directed to be released on pre-arrest
bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned
District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned District Court where the case is pending in
connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 181/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45436 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
7. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found
that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as
what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…