Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12604/2026rejected

Vikram Yadav @ Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12604 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2025 Thana- Gurupa District- Gaya ====================================================== Vikram Yadav @ Vikram Kumar Son of Deba Yadav @ Devnandan Yadav Resident of Village- Dundu, P.S.- Gurpa, District- Gaya... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

XXX Wife of XX Resident of Village- Dundu, P.S.- Gurpa, District- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 16.10.2025 in connection with Gurpa P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 09.10.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2),96 of BNS but the chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 64,137(2),96 of BNS and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act.

3. As per FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he with the help of other co-accused taken away the victim girl.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12604 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026 2/2 fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which she has not supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2010 which suggests that on the date of occurrence i.e. 06.10.2025 the victim was minor and consent of the minor is no consent in the eye of law, apart from that, from a bare perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS which suggests that the petitioner has made physical relation with her.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gurpa P.S. Case No. 150 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Gaya Jee.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T