Patna High Court
Ramkishun Yadav @ Ramkishun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramkishun Yadav, was arrested in connection with a rape alleged to have occurred on 21 January 2025 involving a 17‑year‑old girl, the informant’s daughter. The prosecution charged him under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 65 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner pleaded that he has a clean antecedent, the FIR is fabricated, and that both the victim and the informant failed to support the prosecution’s case during trial. The court noted the lack of corroborative testimony, the petitioner’s clean record, and the fact that the victim’s statement did not implicate him, and therefore considered bail appropriate. Consequently, the court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a serious offence of rape under the BNS and POCSO Act given the nature of the charges and the evidence.
- Whether the lack of support from the victim and informant, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, warrant bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- criminal antecedent
- FIR registration
- victim testimony
- section 115
- section 126
- section 352
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9952 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- MARAUNA District- Supaul
======================================================
Ramkishun Yadav @ Ramkishun Kumar S/o Laxmi Yadav @ Lakshmi Yadav
R/o Village - Khushyali, P.S - Marauna, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX S/o YYY R/o Village - Khushiyali, Ward No. 9, P.S - Marauna,
District - Supaul
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For the informant : Mr. Shabina Talat, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
09.10.2025 in connection with Marauna P.S. Case No. 98 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2),
352, 351(2), 351(3) and 65 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of
POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that 21.01.2025 at
about 03:00 P.M. informant’s daughter (victim XXX), aged
about 17 years, went from her house in the north- cast direction
to see the wheat and potato crop in her field. In the meantime
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9952 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/5
feeling thirsty, she went to the house of Birendra Yadav,
adjacent to the field to drink water where Ramkishun Yadav
(accused petitioner), who was watching her, forcibly caught
hold her (victim XXX), and took her to his house and
committed rape with her. When the informant's daughter tried to
raise alarm, Ramkishun Yadav (accused petitioner) stuffed a
cloth in her mouth and continuously raped her. Hearing the
sound of people coming, accused Ramkishun Yadav ran away
from the house. Thereafter, the informant's daughter returned
her home and informed his father about the incident. Then
informant informed the villagers about the incident and went to
accused Ramkishun's (accused petitioner) house to tell his
father, uncle and accused Ramkishun's wife Saraswati Devi. The
above mentioned accused namely Laxmi Yadav, Laxman Yadav,
Ramchandra Yadav and Saraswati Devi abused and pushed the
informant out of the house which was witnessed by the people.
After the incident, the informant's daughter became mentally
disturbed and seriously ill and she has yet not recovered from
that trauma. Then the informant reported the incident to police
at Marauna P.S after which the police of Marauna P.S came to
the place of incident and they assured the complainant that they
will register FIR and will take legal action. But they neither
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9952 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/5
registered the FIR nor did they taken any legal action.
Therefore, the complainant gave a written application to Mahila
Thana, Supaul on 21/03/2025 but Mahila Thana Supaul also did
not register the FIR application and asked him to come on
01/04/2025 and on that day also they did not take any legal
action. Being helpless the complainant filed the complaint
petition in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in
the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed a
Complaint Case No. 05 of 2025 on 26.03.2025 stating therein
the date of occurrence as 21.01.2025 but the same was
forwarded on 13.03.2025 for registration of the present FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although
victim has supported the case of prosecution in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS but during the trial she has
not stated anything about the petitioner instead she has stated
that one Kusum Sharma has committed wrong with her
(Annexure-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the informant (PW-2) has not supported the case of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9952 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/5
prosecution as alleged in the FIR and police after investigation
has submitted charge-sheet and the petitioner is in custody since
09.10.2025
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand,
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the fact that
PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (informant) have not supported the
case of the prosecution during the trial, let the petitioner, above
named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Supaul in
connection with Marauna P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, her bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9952 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
5/5
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…