Anubhav Yadav @ Anubhav KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90628 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-521 Year-2016 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Anubhav Yadav @ Anubhav Kumar Son of Sri Jatindar Yadav Resident of
                 Village - Bangaccha, Police Station - Telmar (Harnaut), District - Nalanda

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    XYZ Son of XXX Resident of village - Muraura Dih, Police Station -
                 Biharsharif, District - Nalanda

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Shashi Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Nagendra Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   20-04-2026                     Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Bihar P.S. Case No. 521 of 2016 registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian

                   Penal Code.

                                 3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the

                   petitioner has kidnapped the daughter of the informant.

                                 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely

                   been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that

                   on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioner was a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90628 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
                                            2/4




          juvenile, being below 16 years of age, and has raised the issue

          of juvenility by filing an I.A. No.1/2025. In this regard, learned

          counsel has relied upon the judgment of the cases of Ashwani

          Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 750,

          Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC

          263, Abuzar         Hossain @ Gulam Hossal Vs. State of West

          Bengal reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489, X 7 Vs. State of Bihar,

          reported in 2021(4) BLJ 511 and Saurav Kumar Vs. State of

          Bihar reported in 2020(6) BLJ 628, XX Vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2020(4) BLJ 414 and Shivendra Kumar @

          Shailendra Vs. State of Rajasthan (Cr. Rev. Petition No.300 of

          2017).

                        5. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the

          petitioner that on the date of the alleged occurrence, he was

          below 18 years of age and, therefore, entitled to be treated as a

          juvenile in conflict with law. In this regard, an interlocutory

          application      has also been filed raising the said plea. The

          question of juvenility is a mixed question of fact and law, which

          requires proper adjudication on the basis of cogent and reliable

          evidence, including documents relating to the date of birth of

          the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure prescribed

          under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90628 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
                                            3/4




          and the Rules framed thereunder. Since such an exercise cannot

          be appropriately undertaken at this stage, the petitioner is

          granted liberty to raise the issue of juvenility before the learned

          District Court, which shall consider and decide the same in

          accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing

          to the parties and upon proper verification of the relevant

          records.

                        6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

          prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail and submitted that the victim,

          in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.,

          has supported the allegations made in the FIR. It has further

          been noted in the impugned order that the accused persons

          allegedly kept the victim confined for two months and

          threatened to make her video viral. Upon medical examination,

          her pregnancy test was found positive and, as such, the

          petitioner don’t deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

                        7. Having heard the rival submissions made on

          behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in

          the FIR, and considering the fact that the victim has supported

          the allegations in her statements made under Sections 161 and

          164 Cr.P.C and her pregnancy test has also been found positive,

          I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90628 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
                                                       4/4




                                   8. Accordingly, the present bail application and the

                     interlocutory application stand disposed of.



                                               (Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-

U