Vicky Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27216 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2025 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vicky Yadav Son of Late Supan Yadav @ Ghanshyam Yadav Resident of Village - Porahi, Police Station - Harnaut, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XX Wife of YY Resident of Porai, P.S.- Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sudish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 17-11-2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 08 of 2026 arising out of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 509 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, on 01-11-2025 at about 2.00 A.M. while the informant woke up for defecation, she did not find her daughter at home. Thereafter, she got awaken her family members and started to search her daughter but she could not find her. In the morning, it came to knowledge

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27216 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 2/3 of the informant that the petitioner took away her daughter by alluring her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent. The allegation as levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is false and fabricated one. The petitioner has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. As a matter of fact, there was love affairs between the petitioner and the victim. It has also been submitted that the victim refused to go for medical test.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that as per FIR, the petitioner abducted the daughter of the informant. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section-183 of the BNSS, in which, she has stated that the petitioner has abducted her and apart from that, the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim in a room at Ara for 15 days. The date of birth of the victim is 17-09-2012 which suggests that on the date of occurrence, the victim was minor.

6. Considering the nature of allegation as made in the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section-183 of the BNSS coupled with the fact that on the date of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27216 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 3/3 occurrence, the victim was minor, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) A.K.V.//- U T