Patna High Court
CR. MISC./37043/2026 of Akshay Yadav Vs The State of Bihar on 15 June 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37043 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Akshay Yadav Son of Sheetal Yadav @ Mukesh Kr. Yadav @ Mulash Kumar Yadav Resident of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37043 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur ======================================================
Akshay Yadav Son of Sheetal Yadav @ Mukesh Kr. Yadav @ Mulash Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Dahua Lakariya Mode, P.S.- Sharawan, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
For the State
:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant
:
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
15-06-2026 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 Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant was working at Gujarat with her husband. She met there with the petitioner. Petitioner anyhow took the mobile number of the informant and started talking with her. When she came to Bhuvalpur in year 2022, the petitioner arrived at the house of the informant. When the husband of the informant was not present in the house, then the petitioner in a closed room established physical relationship with her on knife point and also made vide of the act and threatened to make the video viral. It is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37043 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
further alleged that on the basis of the said video, the petitioner used to establish physical relationship with the informant and started blackmailing her. It is alleged that on 18.12.2023 the petitioner and one Pradip Yadav both sons of Sheetal Yadav and one Ranjeet Yadav arrived at the house of the informant and gave her knife blow. On 13.12.2023 the informant went to the house of the petitioner where she was being assaulted by his family members. Police was called and the police conciliated the matter. The petitioner took her to Surat and they started living as husband and wife. It is alleged that the petitioner used to establish physical relationship with her and also assaulted her. Anyhow she came back on 06.02.2023.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that there was relationship between the parties and the matter was brought before police where the parties have settled the issue and the petitioner and informant started living as husband and wife. It has further been submitted that at most last date of occurrence according to the informant is 06.02.2023 when she returned her home but this case has been filed on 22.03.2024, after lapse of 13 months. There is no explanation of the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is clear that this is a case of relationship between two adults and breakup Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37043 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
thereafter. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and is in judicial custody since 07.03.2026.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned counsel for the informant and he has submitted that the petitioner has assaulted the informant with knife. Learned APP for the State has also vehemently opposed the bail.
6. From perusal of the FIR itself it is clear that the there is delay of more than a year in filing of the case and no medical examination of the victim was conducted.
7. 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 court of learned ACJM- 9th, Bhagalpur in connection with Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2024.
durgesh/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T