Rahul Prasad Yadav @ Rahul Prasad Yadaw v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19801 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2024 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rahul Prasad Yadav @ Lalu Prasad Yadaw Son of Birendra Kumar Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Yadav @ Govinad Yadaw Resident of Village - Suhath, P.O.- Putai, P.S.- Bahera, District - Darbhanga, Bihar - 847423. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Shama Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Bhushan, A.P.P.
Mr.Dr.Anand Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 376, 341, 323, 354B, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner forcibly established physical relation with the informant and made obscene videos and continued making physical relation on the threatening that he would make viral the obscene video. Later on, due to intervention of villagers, petitioner consummated marriage with her in the temple. After sometime, he left the informant. Thereafter, his elder brother, co-accused Lalu Prasad Yadav tried to outrage her modesty.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19801 of 2025(5) dt.11-08-2025 2/2 submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, villagers forcibly performed marriage of the informant with the petitioner without his will and forced her to live in her house. Later on, he managed to escape from the informant's house and left the State to earn livelihood. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the informant oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that petitioner happens to be husband of the informant and during investigation, she has stated that the petitioner physically and mentally abused her.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U T