Patna High Court
Daya Shankar Yadav @ Daya Shankar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to bail; the bail application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Daya Shankar Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Buxar Mahila Police Station (Case No. 65 of 2023) involving offences under Sections 341, 354(B), 323, 506, 509/34 of the IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that on 19 November 2023, during a Chhath Puja ceremony, the petitioner and other accused threatened the victim with a pistol, assaulted her, and recorded an indecent video. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to village politics and highlighted his clean antecedents and custody since 1 August 2025. The State relied on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which identified the petitioner as one of the perpetrators. The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s corroborated testimony, and the nature of the offences, concluding that the petitioner does not merit the privilege of bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail for offences under Sections 341, 354(B), 323, 506, 509/34 of the IPC and Sections 8, 10, 12 of the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354(B), 506, 509
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 10, 12, 8
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- sexual assault
- intimidation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66114 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar
======================================================
Daya Shankar Yadav @ Daya Shankar Singh S/O Late Kishor Yadav @
Kishor Singh R/O Village- Goppur, P.S.- Sikraul, Distt.- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandani Kumari D/O Shri Lallanbari R/O Village- Goppur, P.S.- Sikraul,
Distt.- Buxar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramakant Yadav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection
with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 65 of 2023, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(B), 323, 506, 509/34
of the IPC and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
informant/victim filed the FIR stating therein that on 19.11.2023,
at around 07:00 P.M., when the informant had gone to Shokha
Dham to perform Chhath Puja and had gone to attend the call of
nature, in the meantime, six accused persons, including the
petitioner, came there and at the point of a pistol, threatened to kill
the informant. It is further alleged that the petitioner outraged the
modesty of the victim and also made a video of the incident.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66114 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner and the
informant are co-villagers, and due to dirty village politics, the
petitioner has been implicated in this case. He has also submitted
that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and has been in
custody since 01.08.2025.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State, by
drawing my attention towards the victim’s statement recorded
under Section 164 of the CrPC, has submitted that on the occasion
of Chhath Puja, the victim had gone to the temple with her mother.
After some time, she went aside for urination, where 6–7 accused
persons, amongst whom she identified the petitioner and co-
accused Dharmendra Yadav, forcibly caught hold of her, gagged
her mouth and, after pointing a pistol at her temporal region, they
prepared a video clip of the indecent act.
6. The victim has fully supported the occurrence and the
indecent act committed by the petitioner. He is named in the FIR.
7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the
privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…