Patna High Court
Amit Kumar @ Amit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 341, 354(c), 354(b), 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he and another person clicked an inappropriate picture of a minor and threatened to make it viral. He contended that he has a clean record and that the informant’s allegations are false, noting that the informant could not be traced and appeared uninterested in pursuing the case. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother and that the allegation of making the picture viral had not been denied. After hearing both sides, the Court found the circumstances insufficient to merit the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the facts alleged in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 341, 354(b), 354(c), 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
- sexual offences
- minor
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78933 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2023 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Amit Kumar @ Amit Yadav S/o Kamdev Yadav Resident of Rajpura, P.S.-
Jamui, Dist.- Jamui, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of Subodh Yadav Resident of Rajpura, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui,
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Jamui P.S. Case No.85/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 354(c), 354(B), 504, 506 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act.
3. The Court at the outset made a specific query to the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
whether the allegation of making inappropriate picture of the
victim viral has been denied or not, on which, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
same has not been denied. It is next submitted that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that
Amit used to act inappropriate with her minor daughter, further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78933 of 2025(5) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
on 26.01.2023 at 8 A.M. while the victim was taking bath at the
hand-pump, accused Amit and Guddu clicked her inappropriate
picture with their mobile and based on the inappropriate picture,
the accused persons started calling the victim to meet them and
when the victim refused they threatened that the picture would
be made viral, hence the victim disclosed about the ordeal to the
informant, accordingly the informant confronted the accused
when the pictures were made viral and also threatened that they
will pore acid on the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the date
of occurrence is 26.01.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted
on 09.02.2023. It is further submitted that one Kamdeo Yadav
instituted Jamui P.S. Case No.86 of 2023 dated 09.02.2023
against the son of the present informant namely Rajeev alleging
that Rajeev along with named accused persons acted
inappropriately with his daughter. It is also submitted that
notices were issued on the O.P. No.2 but then the office report
records that informant could not be traced which amply
demonstrates that informant is not interested in pursuing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78933 of 2025(5) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the
FIR has been instituted by the mother of the victim with an
allegation that inappropriate picture of her daughter was made
viral by the accused persons including the petitioner. It is also
submitted that it does not appear probable that a mother would
want to falsely implicate someone who was not involved in the
occurrence. It is also submitted that had the picture not been
made viral, in that event, a pleading to that effect would have
been made in the anticipatory bail application but then it has
been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the said allegation has not been denied.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…