Patna High Court
CR. MISC./40505/2026 of Md. Alamgir Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40505 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Md. Alamgir son of Md. Isaq @ Md. Isakh Resident of village- Beuni, Ps- pator, Dist-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40505 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ======================================================
Md. Alamgir son of Md. Isaq @ Md. Isakh Resident of village- Beuni, Ps- pator, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
X Daughter of Y Resident of village- Baruara, PS- Fekala, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
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
17-08-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No. 2, there is no representation on her behalf.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.121 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 351(2), 352, and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. Allegedly, while the informant was working as a domestic help in the house of co-accused Md. Islam, she was subjected to physical and sexual exploitation. Subsequently, Md. Islam left the house, whereafter the petitioner, who happens to be his brother-in-law, came to the said house to take care of it. It is alleged that on 07.08.2025, at about 11:30 P.M., when the informant was sleeping in her room, the petitioner committed rape upon her and threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that, surprisingly, the allegations of physical and sexual exploitation in the first instance were levelled against co- accused Md. Islam, but no complaint whatsoever was made against him at the relevant point of time. It is subsequently alleged that, when the petitioner came to the house, on 07.08.2025, he committed rape upon the informant. Although the alleged occurrence took place on 07.08.2025, the present FIR came to be instituted only on 14.08.2025, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay has been furnished. Learned counsel further argued that, in the FIR, the informant stated that her mother was working at Kolkata, whereas, in her statement recorded during the course of investigation, the mother disclosed a different version and stated that she had been working at Delhi. It is also submitted that, from the FIR, it appears that the alleged occurrence took place in the house of Md. Islam, whereas, during the course of investigation, it has subsequently emerged that the petitioner had entered the house of the victim and committed the alleged offence there. There is a serious discrepancy regarding the age of the victim. In her statement, the victim disclosed her age as 16 years, whereas a copy of the Nikahnama placed on record indicates her age to be 20 years. It is also submitted that, despite being taken to the hospital, the victim refused to undergo medical examination. There are several material inconsistencies in the statement of the victim. Moreover, the petitioner bears fair antecedent.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and has specifically alleged that it is the petitioner who committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that some delay in lodging an FIR in cases of this nature cannot, by itself, be treated as fatal to the prosecution case.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record, particularly the delay in lodging the FIR, the refusal of the victim to undergo medical examination, the discrepancies appearing in her statements, the apparent inconsistency regarding her age, and the fact that the petitioner has no adverse criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Darbhanga in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.121 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further following conditions
(i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(ii) If the petitioner is found involve in intimidating/ threatening the witnesses or the informant or would indulge in such activities in future, the informant/State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of his bail bond(s).
rohit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T