Surendra Yadav @ Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87272 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2023 Thana- SUHAIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Surendra Yadav @ Suraj Kumar, Son of Rajendra Yadav, Resident of Village - Nawa, P.S. - Manatu, District - Palamu, (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

XX Wife of YY, R/o Village - Sardama, P.S. - Suhail, Dist. - Gayaji. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate Ms. Rabia Gulnaz, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate Ms. Ranana Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Suhail P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner along with one Satyendra Yadav arrived at the house of the informant, took away the minor daughter of the informant on bike forcefully and Satyendra Yadav has solemnized marriage with her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87272 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. In this case, Satyendra Yadav and the victim of this case have solemnized the marriage. The doctor has examined as P.W.-5 during trial and he has opined that the age of the victim is between 18 to 19 years. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant has compromised the case with him and has filed a compromise petition in the learned trial Court in which she has stated that due to misconception, name of this petitioner was given the F.I.R. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 30.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the informant has also admitted that the parties have compromised the case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya Ji in connection with Suhail P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T