Julmi Yadav @ Julesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27841 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== JULMI YADAV @ JULESH YADAV S/o Sulendra Yadav R/o vill - Kamlakhund, ward no. 7, P.S.- Ismilepur, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XX (Symbolic Name) D/o Mangal Yadav R/o vill - Chotti Malia, P.S.- Gogri, Dist.- Khagaria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 27-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 05.10.2025 in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No.256 of 2025, FIR dated 05.10.2025 registered for the offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act.

3. According to the prosecution, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons committed rape upon her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anyone.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27841 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026 2/2 been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 05.10.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that the medical board has found the age of the victim to be about 16-17 years which suggest that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was minor.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of allegation supported by statement of the victim and medical evidence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No.256 of 2025, pending in the Court of Special Judge, POCSO, Khagaria

7. Prayer is refused.

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