IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85653 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran ======================================================

Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar Son of Late Shivnath Rai Village-

Lachumanwa Ps -Kotwa Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Gita Devi Wife of Vinod Yadav Village- Lachumanwa Ps -Kotwa Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant : Mr. Manjeet Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 87 & 3(5)

of the BNS and under Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant. During course of investigation, the victim was recovered and stated that she was on talking terms with the petitioner and has gone with him to Hyderabad. In her statement under Section

183 of the BNSS she has stated that while she was coming to her home, the petitioner threw something over her and after that took her on his bike and from train went to Gujarat and Hyderabad. She has further stated that she started living with this petitioner at Hyderabad and whenever she told the petitioner to drop her at her house, she was not being dropped by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is teen-aged and she was having affair with the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the informant is present and he has stated that the petitioner is aged about 35 years and is father of three kids, though the victim has not alleged any sexual act with her during her stay with the petitioner but from perusal of the medical examination report it is clear that the Doctor conducting the medical examination has opined that according to the above examination as per urine test for pregnancy is positive and there is evidence of recent sexual activity. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that much regarding romantic relationship between two adolescents but in this case it is not the case of romantic relationship between two adolescents but it is a case between a man and the victim who happens to be brother of the victim who had sexual intercourse with her. Though the victim has made every effort not to disclose about the sexual intercourse but the medical examination report is very clear.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial as this is a case under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

durgesh/- U T