Md. Anwar vs The State of Bihar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4448

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4448

PATNA HIGH COURT
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J
Md. Anwar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1800 of 2026

Important Points

The court denied bail based on serious allegations of kidnapping and rape, despite challenges over evidence and timing of the F.I.R.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail Application

Act Referred

B.N.S., 2023: S.65, S.96, S.3(5)
POCSO Act: S.4

Headnote

In this case concerning a bail application, the petitioner, Md. Anwar, seeks release while in custody since 05.11.2025 connected to charges under Sections 65, 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court notes significant allegations including kidnapping and rape of a minor, with the prosecution's assertion supported by victim statements recorded under relevant statutes. Key issues include the validity of the F.I.R.’s timing and medical evidence, which the petitioner argues undermines the case against him. The court concludes that due to serious allegations, bail is denied.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP

Table of Content
1. arguments regarding bail and evidentiary issues. (Para 4 , 5)
2. court's final determination on bail application. (Para 6)

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

2 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

05.11.2025 in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 04.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 65 , 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act .

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and co-

accused person are alleged to have kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and raped her. The specific allegation of rape is against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From bare perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 15.10.2025 /16.10.2005 but the present F.I.R. has been initiated on 04.11.2025 without giving any explanation of delay and the medical report does not support the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is in custody since

05.11.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of victim was recorded u/s 183 of BNSS in which she has supported the case of the prosecution. The occurrence took place on 15.10.2025 and the victim was medically examined on 05.11.2025 after delay of 20 days so there is possibility that no sign of rape was found on the person of the victim and the date of birth of victim is 16 to 17 years which suggest that the victim was minor on the date of occurrence.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-

Special Judge, POCSO, Madhubani, District- Madhubani.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)