Patna High Court
Md. Gulfraz @ Md. GulrazversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Gulfraz, was charged under Section 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping a minor who was the daughter of the informant. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the medical examination found no spermatozoa, there were no injuries, and the accusation was motivated by a neighbourly dispute over drainage, asserting his innocence and clean antecedents. The State and the victim’s mother opposed bail, stating that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS corroborated the prosecution’s case and that four out of five witnesses had already been examined. The Court, considering the seriousness of the allegation and the evidence presented, refused to grant bail to the petitioner. It also directed the trial court to expedite the remaining witness examination and conclude the trial within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO rape case given the seriousness of the allegation and the evidence on record
- Whether the absence of spermatozoa and injuries is sufficient to justify bail
- Whether the claim of false implication arising from a neighbourly dispute is credible
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- minor
- false implication
- trial expeditious
- medical evidence
- neighbor dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15033 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Md. Gulfraz @ Md. Gulraz, Son of Late Md. Rahim, Resident of Mohalla-
Bansi Tikkar, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Daughter of Y Resident of Mohalla- Bansi Tikkar, Ward No. 2, P.S.-
Sabour, P.O.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur- 813210
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.M. Ashraf, Senior Advocate
Mrs.Rana Hason, Advocate
For the State : Mrs.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 Heard learned senior 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 POCSO Case No. 102/2025, arising out of
Sabour P.S. Case No. 171 of 2025, registered for the alleged
offences under Section 65(1) of BNS and Sections 4/8 of
POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, while the minor
daughter of the informant was alone in her house, she was called
by the petitioner to his house and forcibly taking her to his
house, the petitioner committed rape with her.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15033 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in this case. The victim girl was
medically examined two days after the alleged rape and it was
reported that no spermatozoa was found and there was no
evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The learned senior
counsel further submits that the petitioner and the victim girl are
neighbours and there is dispute over drainage and, as such, the
mother of the victim has falsely implicated the petitioner with
some ulterior motive. The learned senior counsel further submits
that the petitioner is the father of two children and runs a mobile
repairing shop. The FIR has been registered after 24 hours
without any satisfactory explanation. It also shows afterthought
and deliberation on part of the informant. The learned senior
counsel further submits that though there is allegation that the
petitioner repeatedly slapping the victim, but no injury was
found on the person of the victim. The learned senior counsel
further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2025
and is having clean antecedent. The charges have been framed
on 27.08.2025 and, thereafter, prosecution witnesses are being
examined, but there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
5. The learned APP as well as learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15033 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
opposite party no.2 vehemently oppose the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 submits that altogether four witnesses have been
examined out of five witnesses. The learned counsel further
submits that the victim has supported the prosecution story in
her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS.
7. Having regard to the specific nature of allegation
which is quite serious, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail. Hence, his prayer for grant of bail is rejected.
8. Since the prosecution has already examined four
witnesses as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and only one witness remains to be examined, the
learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude
the same at the earliest and preferably within a period of three
months.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.