Patna High Court
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manoj Yadav petitioned for regular bail in a case registered under Section 70(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging rape of a minor. The prosecution alleged that six accused, including the petitioner, had raped the minor, based on a statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the victim’s statement did not accuse him of rape, and that his only alleged involvement was an assurance of settlement and a threat, for which he had been in judicial custody since 17‑09‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. After considering the facts, the court found insufficient basis to keep the petitioner detained and ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the charges under the POCSO Act and the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute a cognizable offence warranting continued detention.
- Whether the victim’s statement, when read at face value, implicates the petitioner in the alleged rape.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 183, 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- regular bail
- POCSO Act
- rape of minor
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80244 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Son of surendra Prasad Yadav Resident Of
Village- Badi Lagar Ps- Parbatta District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar bihar
2. Munchun Devi wife of Bablu Chuadhary Resident Of Village- Chakpryag,
Ward no. 4, Ps- Parbatta, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 70 (2) of
the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one
Sachin Kumar forcibly made the minor daughter of the
informant sit on a bike took her to ‘bandh’ where six boys were
allegedly present. It is further alleged that the victim was taken
below the ‘bandh’ and was committed rape one by one. During
the Course of investigation, the victim has given her statement
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS which finds mention at
paragraph-21 of the case diary. According to which, six accused
persons committed rape with the minor daughter of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80244 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection with the
present case and that he has no involvement whatsoever in the
alleged offence of rape. It is further submitted that upon a
careful reading of the statement of the victim, even if the same
is taken at its face value, no allegation of rape has been
attributed to the present petitioner. It is further submitted that in
the last part of the statement, the victim stated that she disclosed
the occurrence to her mother whereafter her mother approached
the ‘mukhiya’ (the present petitioner). It is alleged that the
petitioner stated that if a case was lodged, it might create
difficulties in the marriage of the victim and assured that the
matter would be settled. She further alleged that she was also
threatened with dire consequences. It is further submitted that,
at best, the allegation against the present petitioner is limited to
an alleged assurance of settlement and an alleged threat, and he
is not among the accused persons, who are alleged to have
committed rape upon the victim. Moreover, the petitioner has
been languising in judicial custody since 17.09.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80244 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 349 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Khagaria.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…