Patna High Court – Orders
Santosh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.246 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2022 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Kaleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-
Bharopur, PS -Katoria, District- Banka.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Geeta Kumari Daughter of Vijay Yadav Resident of Village- Bharopur, PS
-Katoria, PO- Supaha District- Banka.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP
For the Resp No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
7 18-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Despite valid service of notice on Respondent No. 2/
informant, she has chosen not to enter appearance to oppose the
prayer of the appellant.
2. Records have been placed before this Court to
consider the prayer of the sole appellant for suspension of his
sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment
dated 23.01.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 30.01.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO, Banka for the offence under Section 376(1) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
2/8
Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Section 4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act‘) in
Special POCSO Case No. 27 of 2022 (arising out of Katoria P.S.
Case No. 13 of 2022). He has been ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for eleven years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.
4. The prosecution case is based on a private
complaint giving rise to Complaint Case No. 1027 of 2021 filed
by the victim (PW-3) in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Banka on 06.10.2021 with respect to an occurrence
said to have taken place with her inside her house on 06.08.2021
at about 03:00 PM. In her written complaint, according to the
complainant the victim was with her two younger sisters and
one younger brother. Her parents had gone to Deoghar for some
important work. At about 03:00 PM accused Santosh Yadav and
Laxmi Yadav crossed over the wall of the house of the victim
girl and entered inside her house and one other accused, namely,
Nitish Yadav was watching sitting on the wall. Both the accused,
Santosh Yadav and Laxmi Yadav caught hold of the victim and
committed wrong act with her. When the victim tried to scream,
both the accused persons threatened her to kill her. Both the
accused committed wrong act with her one by one. The victim
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
3/8
alleged that after committing rape they threatened her to kill her
parents also and fled away and the victim remained
unconscious. After one hour witnesses came and the victim gave
complete information. The victim further alleged that for
treatment, she was taken to Katoria Hospital and went to police
station to give written application against the accused persons
but after completion of even one month, Katoria Police Station
had not taken any step, therefore, she submitted complaint
petition after delay.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on a
bare perusal of the complaint petition giving rise to the present
case, it would appear that the complaint petition has been
presented after two months of the occurrence through an
Advocate but it does not disclose compliance with Section
154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC‘). It
does not show any compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and
Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported
in (2015) 6 SCC 287 wherein a private complaint is required to
be filed on affidavit disclosing complete statement as to when
the complainant approached the police and if the police in the
police station did not lodge the FIR then the copy of the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
4/8
was sent to the Superintendent of Police. Despite all these
defects in the presentation of the complaint, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Banka entertained the same and in exercise
of his powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, he directed police to
lodge the FIR.
6. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is the
full brother of Vijay Yadav (PW-6) who is the step father of the
victim girl. It has come in the evidence of PW-7 who is the sister
of the victim that her father has got land dispute with the
accused because the accused had not given his share of land and
they used to quarrel.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the
prosecution case is completely false and the same is evident
from the evidence available on the record. The occurrence is
said to have taken place at 03:00 PM inside the house when the
victim was brooming the floor of her house, the appellant is said
to have crossed over the wall, entered into the house and
committed wrong act with her. The victim has clearly stated that
at that time her mother and father were not in the house and the
witnesses came after one hour but her mother who has deposed as
PW-4 has stated that she had retur ned home at 03:00 PM and
claims to have been present at the time of occurrence. Her story
is that initially this appellant committed rape on her and then
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
5/8
after he fled away, ten minutes, thereafter, another accused came
and he also committed the same act. Vijay Yadav, who is the
step father of the victim, has deposed that the victim was in
naked condition and she was bleeding but despite all these
claims of the witnesses, the victim (PW-3) has categorically
stated that when she went along with her mother to the police
station, no application was given to the police and no medical
examination had taken place in Katoria Police Station. She has
further stated that she had not gone for treatment to any private
hospital. She has specifically stated that she had no bodily
injury.
8. Learned counsel submits that the victim (PW-3) has
stated in her deposition that she does not talk to anyone not even
with her great grandparents and the aunties. It is, thus, submitted
that the enmity in the family writs large on the face of the
statement of the victim girl.
9. It is further submitted that the victim was taken for
medical examination on 11.01.2022 where the Doctor (PW-5)
did not find any recent sign of sexual act and no mark of injury
or any foreign particle was present, however, the Doctor was of
the opinion that the sign of hymen rupture present is indicating
previous sexual relationship. The victim was examined for age
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
6/8
verification and it was found below 17 years. The Doctor clearly
observed that on the body, there was no sign of any injury and
there was no tear mark in the private part of the victim.
10. Learned counsel submits that the father of Vijay
Yadav (step father of the victim) has deposed as DW-1 and he
has stated that the mother of the victim got the false case lodged
against the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 14.05.2022
and this appeal is of the year 2025 which is not likely to be
heard in near future, therefore, the appellant would deserve
suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of
the appeal.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
is present. While opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence
and release on bail of the appellant, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor does not contest the submission that there is an
inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, the private complaint
case was lodged after two months of the occurrence and the
enmity between the step father of the victim and the appellant
has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses and even the
defence witnesses including the father of Vijay Yadav has stated
about the enmity on account of land dispute.
12. Having regard to the entire facts and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
7/8
circumstances and the materials which we have noticed
hereinabove and considering that in this case, the private
complaint was presented after two months without there being
any compliance with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
with regard to filing of a private complaint, the step father of the
victim and the appellant are full brothers and there is dispute on
account of land, further there are highly inconsistent deposition
to the extent of contradiction by the witnesses to each other and
the deposition of the victim, prima facie, does not inspire
confidence, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant,
who has already remained in incarceration for almost four years
but this appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, deserves
suspension of sentence and release on bail during pendency of
the appeal.
13. Accordingly, we direct suspension of sentence and
release of the above-named appellant on bail during pendency of
the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Banka in connection with
Special POCSO Case No. 27 of 2022 arising out of Katoria P.S.
Case No. 13 of 2022.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.246 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
8/8
14. Fine, if any, imposed as part of sentence shall
remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.
15. It is clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative in nature for
purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail which would not
cause prejudice to either of the parties.
16. List this appeal for hearing on it’s turn.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U T
