Patna High Court
Rambadan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rambadan Yadav, sought bail in a special POCSO case alleging kidnapping and child marriage of a minor, the informant's daughter. He claimed no prior criminal record, asserted that he was not named in the FIR, and argued that the victim voluntarily went with him and was aged between 17 and 20. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim is a minor and the charge sheet includes serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The court noted that consent of a minor is legally invalid and, given the gravity of the charges, refused to grant bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial without undue delays.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged kidnapping and child marriage of a minor
- Whether the alleged consent of a minor is valid under the applicable statutes
- Whether the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 64(1), 96
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act — s. 9
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child marriage
- minor
- kidnapping
- consent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85928 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- Pastpar Pusthi District- Saharsa
======================================================
Rambadan Yadav Son of Jogi Yadav Resident of Village - Mangrauni, Ward
no. 4, P.S. - Mahishi, District - Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Son of Y R/o Village - Paharpur, Ward no. 15, P.S. - Pastpur, Dist. -
Saharsa.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Buddhi Lal Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special
POCSO Case No. 109 of 2025, arising out of Pastpar P.S. Case
No. 37 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 137(2)
& 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 & 6 of
the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act.
3. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that accused
persons, including the petitioner, allegedly kidnapped the minor
daughter of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85928 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2025. Petitioner
bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner
has transpired during investigation. As per statement of the
victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is
submitted that she had gone with the petitioner at her own
volition and had performed marriage with the petitioner. As per
medical report, age of the victim is assessed to be between 17 to
20 years.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is mainly
submitted that victim is minor and police has submitted charge
sheet in this case under Sections 137(2), 96 & 64(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO
Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and specifically taking into account the fact that
victim is minor, hence, there is no value of consent in the eye of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85928 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
law, moreover, charge sheet is submitted under Sections 137(2),
96 & 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 &
6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is hereby rejected.
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…