Patna High Court
Jitendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by the victim’s statement, and the petitioner had a prior criminal record.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for allegedly kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, abducted the child, administered a drug, and concealed her in a village house, supported by the victim’s statement recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing lack of eyewitness testimony and no caste‑based offence under the SC/ST Act. The State and the informant opposed bail, highlighting the specific accusations, the seriousness of the offences (including violations of the POCSO Act), and the petitioner’s prior criminal record. The court, considering the direct nature of the allegations, the gravity of the crimes, the victim’s testimony, and the petitioner’s antecedents, rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the specific accusations of kidnapping and drugging a minor under the B.N.S., POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and the victim’s statement warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- kidnapping
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
- victim statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8249 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Jitendra Yadav S/O Mahadev Yadav R/O Village-Jamunia, P.S- Gopalpur,
Distt.- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/O Y R/O Village- Rampur, P.S- Govindganj, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2),
143(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO
Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons,
kidnapped minor daughter of informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8249 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case
with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is
absolutely no allegation of abuse by caste name and as such, no
offence under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against this
petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he along with other named accused
kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. During
investigation, the victim was recovered and in her statement
recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., she has supported the
prosecution case and alleged that this petitioner along with co-
accused Surendra Mahto came from behind, covered her mouth,
grabbed her hands & feet and after making her inhale some kind
of drug, put her on a motorcycle, took her to Chhapwa village
and kept her in the house of sister of co-accused Surendra
Mahto. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8249 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence,
statement of the victim and criminal antecedents of the
petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…