Patna High Court
Gaya PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaya Prasad, sought bail in a case alleging kidnapping for marriage under IPC sections 366A and 34 and sexual offences against a 12‑year‑old girl under POCSO Act sections 8 and 12. The prosecution alleged that the minor was abducted and sold to the petitioner, with a statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S indicating assault and sexual abuse. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the FIR was lodged 22 days after the alleged incident, and that medical examination showed no spermatozoa, injuries, or evidence of sexual assault. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the minor’s victimhood and the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the minor’s statement and the nature of the charges, refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving kidnapping for marriage and sexual offences against a minor under IPC and POCSO statutes.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping for marriage
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- IPC 366A
- IPC 34
- medical evidence
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74471 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2022 Thana- MANPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Gaya Prasad S/o Dukhi Ram Resident of Vill- Kothava, P.S.- Gaur, Dist-
Basti, U.P
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mrs. X W/o Late Dhruv Mukhiya R/o vill - Purainiya, P.S. - Manpur, Distt.-
West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Despite valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf
of the Opposite Party No.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the I.P.C and Sections
8/12 of the POCSO Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, informant’s granddaughter
was kidnapped for the purpose of marriage and it is alleged that two
days prior to the occurrence, victim was found talking to one
Mansoor Ansaari over phone.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74471 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
name, subsequently, transpired during the course of investigation in
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Further, the F.I.R was lodged after a delay of about 22 days, in as
much as, while the occurrence is said to have taken place on
17.08.2022, the F.I.R was lodged on 08.09.2022 and also in the
medical examination report, no spermatozoa was found and no
evidence of any sexual assault and no injuries on the body part were
found. Petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2025 with no criminal
antecedent and only charge sheet has been submitted in the present
case.
6. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition on
the ground that the victim is a twelve year old girl who was sold at
the hands of the petitioner for a substantial amount and her statement
under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S discloses that she was subjected to
assault and sexual abuse by the petitioner.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and also considering the statement of the minor victim girl,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite
the trial considering that present case is one under the POCSO Act.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.