Patna High Court

Surendra Yadav @ Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Surendra Yadav, was charged under IPC sections 363, 366(A), 376, 34 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly abducting a minor girl and facilitating her marriage to a co-accused. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting that the victim was actually 18-19 years old as per a medical report and that the case had been compromised between the parties. The informant admitted to the compromise and stated that the petitioner's name was mistakenly included in the FIR. The petitioner had no prior criminal record and had been in judicial custody since 30 October 2025. After hearing both sides, the Court found the compromise and the victim's age relevant and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused of offences under IPC and POCSO when the alleged victim is an adult and the parties have compromised.
Whether the compromise between the informant and the accused affects the bail considerations for serious offences.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4

Subjects

bail
kidnapping
child marriage
POCSO
compromise
IPC
age of consent
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87272 of 2025
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2023 Thana- SUHAIL District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Surendra Yadav @ Suraj Kumar, Son of Rajendra Yadav, Resident of Village -
                 Nawa, P.S. - Manatu, District - Palamu, (Jharkhand).
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XX Wife of YY, R/o Village - Sardama, P.S. - Suhail, Dist. - Gayaji.
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Rabia Gulnaz, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Ranana Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   03-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

                   for the informant and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Suhail P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 34 of the Indian

                   Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner along with one Satyendra Yadav arrived at the house of

                   the informant, took away the minor daughter of the informant on

                   bike forcefully and Satyendra Yadav has solemnized marriage with

                   her.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87272 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. In this case,

                       Satyendra Yadav and the victim of this case have solemnized the

                       marriage. The doctor has examined as P.W.-5 during trial and he

                       has opined that the age of the victim is between 18 to 19 years.

                       Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

                       the informant has compromised the case with him and has filed a

                       compromise petition in the learned trial Court in which she has

                       stated that due to misconception, name of this petitioner was given

                       the F.I.R. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is

                       languishing in judicial custody since 30.10.2025.

                                    5. Learned counsel for the informant has also admitted

                       that the parties have compromised the case.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                       considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                       inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                       petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

                       of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the

                       like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive

                       Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya

                       Ji in connection with Suhail P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023.


                                                      (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…