Patna High Court
Kanhiya Yadav @ Kanhiya Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Kanhiya Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging that he administered intoxicants in food, abducted a woman and her three children, and sexually abused the woman and misbehaved with her minor daughter. The charges were under IPC sections 363, 365, 34 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12. The petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication, while the State highlighted the specific nature of the accusations and the petitioner’s prior criminal record. The court examined the gravity of the offences, the directness of the allegations, and the petitioner’s antecedents. Concluding that the seriousness of the charges and the criminal history outweighed any justification for bail, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the nature of the allegations and his criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 365
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- POCSO
- kidnapping
- sexual abuse
- criminal antecedents
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86065 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2022 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
Kanhiya Yadav @ Kanhiya Kumar Yadav Son of Laldev Yadav R/o Bari Tola,
Ward no. 1, P.S. - Bettiah Muffasil, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of Y R/o Bari Tola, Ward no. 1, P.S. - Bettiah Muffasil, District -
West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 07-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the
POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner gave some intoxicant in the food and took her away
along with her three children. It is further alleged that the
petitioner sexually abused the informant and also misbehaved
with her minor daughter.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86065 of 2025(2) dt.07-01-2026
2/2
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case with ulterior motive.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
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 took away the informant along
with her three children by administering some intoxicant and
later on, sexually abused the informant and also misbehaved
with her minor daughter. Petitioner has got two criminal
antecedents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
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…