Patna High Court
PAPPU YADAV @ PAPPU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Yadav, was accused of molesting and attempting to rape an 11‑year‑old girl, alleged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code (BNS) and the POCSO Act. He filed an anticipatory bail application, claiming he was falsely implicated due to a monetary dispute and political rivalry, and argued that the alleged incident could not have occurred at the stated time. The prosecution relied on the FIR, statements of the victim, and testimonies of two witnesses who supported the charge. The court examined the credibility of the victim’s statement, the presence of corroborative witnesses, and the seriousness of the offences involving a minor. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the supporting evidence, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of molestation and attempted rape of a minor under the BNS and POCSO statutes.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual assault
- minor victim
- POCSO Act
- false allegations
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87551 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
PAPPU YADAV @ PAPPU KUMAR Son of Premlal Yadav Resident of
Village - Dighiya, Ward No.- 11, P.S.- Kishanpur, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. XXX Son of YYY Resident of village - Dighiya, P.S.- Kishanpur, District -
Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nafisu Zzoha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra, APP
Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kishanpur P.S. Case No.164 of 2025 (POCSO Case No.99
of 2025) registered for the offence under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 76, 352(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4, 8 of
POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on 11.08.2025 at about
11:00 PM in the night, the informant's daughter aged about 11
years was sleeping at his home and the informant and his family
members were busy in the Shradh rituals. In the meantime,
Pappu Yadav entered in the house of the informant and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87551 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
threatened and molested the informant's daughter and tried to
commit rape with her. When after the feast, the informant and
his family members returned home, the girl while crying,
narrated the entire incident to them. By then Pappu had fled
from the incident place. Thereafter, While discussing this
misdeed at the social level the culprit, was asked to receive
severe punishment. Then, Mr. Dinesh Yadav, using abusive and
derogatory language, boycotted the discussion and tried to
protect the accused. The informant took his got treated his
daughter at the local C.H.C, Kishanpur". Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. Further submits that the
informant and petitioner belongs to the same neighbourhood and
a monetary transaction took place in between them. It is next
submitted that the case is fully concocted because of the
occurrence as alleged has taken place at 11 P.M. when all family
members had gone to attend Shradh rituals in the
neighbourhood, while the Shradh rituals started to taken place in
the evening hours at about 6-9 P.M.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
the occurrence as alleged has never been taken place, if it is so,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87551 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
there must be a sign of assault on external parts of the body of
the victim, but it was not found and no claim of informant is
there. It is also submitted that denial of the medical examination
of the daughter creates doubt upon the entire prosecution.
Further submits that the co-accused Dinesh Yadav is the cousin
brother of the petitioner who used to participate in the
Panchayat election and the present Mukhiya of the said
panchayat is having inimical terms with co-accused Dinesh
Yadav due to which the present false and concocted case has
been brought against the petitioner and his cousin.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
the petitioner is a married man and his wife is a member of
Jeevika and having three minor children and his daughter is also
about the age of victim girl so he can't commit this type of
occurrence and the I.O of the case examined only interested
witnesses and family members of the informant while two
independent witnesses are there who are also family members of
the informant, which creates doubts upon the prosecution.
5. The learned APP as well as learned counsel for the
informant opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. From the reading of the FIR, it transpires that the
petitioner is the main accused person of this case, who in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87551 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
absence of the parents of the minor girl entered her house and
molested the victim and is also alleged to have attempted to
commit rape with the minor victim. In paragraph-2 of the case
diary in his re-statement the informant has supported the facts
mentioned in the FIR. In paragraph 3 & 4 of the case diary the
witnesses Meera Devi and Kajal Devi have supported the
prosecution story. Statement of the victim also supports the
prosecution story and in her statement made before the learned
Magistrate under Section 183 of BNSS the victim has once
again supported the prosecution story. Admittedly, the victim
was/is minor on the date of the incident.
7. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this
Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…