Patna High Court
Md. Tausif KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The bail petition was dismissed as no fresh ground for reconsideration was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Tausif Khan, was charged with rape of a minor and assaulting the informant and her husband under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, arguing that he had been in custody since 21‑01‑2025 and that only four prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating no likelihood of a speedy trial. The State opposed, contending that no fresh ground was raised for reconsideration and that custody duration alone cannot justify bail. The trial court reported that four witnesses were examined and six months were sought to complete the trial. The High Court found no new ground to revisit the earlier bail denial and consequently rejected the bail petition, while reminding the trial court of the POCSO Act’s mandated time limits and directing the Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of remaining witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial custody and limited progress of the trial.
- Whether any fresh ground exists to reconsider the earlier denial of bail.
- Whether the statutory time‑frame under the POCSO Act mandates expedited trial disposal.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- trial delay
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10733 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Md. Tausif Khan, S/O Wasirul Khan, Resident Of Village- Kumma Ward No.
03, P.s.- Sursand, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. xxxx W/O yyyy Resident Of Village- Kumma Nuri Tola Ward No. 07, P.S.-
Sursand, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
Mr. Ratan Raj, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Trial No. 299 of 2025, arising out of Sursand
P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025, registered for the alleged offences
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS
and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner
committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant and
when the informant and her husband apprised the parents of the
petitioner, the petitioner and his family members assaulted the
informant and her husband.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10733 of 2026(4) dt.03-04-2026
2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Court. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47737 of
2025. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 21.01.2025, but till date, only four prosecution
witnesses have been examined. So, there is no likelihood of
early conclusion of trial.
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP
submits that no fresh ground has been brought on record for
reconsideration of prayer of bail and the period of custody could
not be a ground.
6. A report dated 24.03.2026 has been received from
the learned trial court about the present stage of trial wherein the
learned trial court has submitted that altogether four prosecution
witnesses have been examined including the informant and the
matter remains pending for examination of official witnesses.
The learned trial court prayed for grant of time of six months
for disposal of the trial pending before it.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any new
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10733 of 2026(4) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Hence,
his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
8. However, the learned trial court is reminded about
the mandate of the POCSO Act regarding the stipulated time
period for conclusion of trial.
9. At the same time, the Superintendent of Police,
Sitamarhi is directed to ensure the presence of remaining
prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the learned trial
court. In case, the Superintendent of Police fails to produce the
witnesses on the dates fixed, he will be called before this Court
to explain the circumstances.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…