Patna High Court
Neyaz Ahmed @ Neyaz Ahmad @ AmzadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations doubtful, the delay in filing the FIR significant, and the informant’s compromise sufficient to justify release on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Neyaz Ahmed, was charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Penal Code for alleged rape, extortion, and related offences arising from a complaint by the informant, who claimed he had forced sexual intercourse and later promised marriage. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, the allegations were false, and the FIR was lodged after an undue two‑year delay with no medical evidence of rape. The State maintained that the allegations of rape were specific and warranted continued detention. The informant’s counsel indicated that the victim no longer wished to pursue the case and had reached a compromise with the petitioner. Considering the doubtful nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, the delay in filing, and the informant’s compromise, the court ordered bail on the condition of a bond and sureties, subject to Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other conditions. The bail order was directed to be executed by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious charges of rape and related offences
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case
- Whether the informant’s compromise and desire not to pursue the case warrant bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale of Securities (BNSS) — s. 480(3)
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- false allegations
- delay in FIR
- compromise
- clean antecedent
- Section 480(3) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15059 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Neyaz Ahmed @ Neyaz Ahmad @ Amzad, Son of Nashim Ahmed @ Naseem
Ahmad @ Naseem Ahmed, Resident of Pilkhana Road, Churipatti, Ward No.-
04, P.S.- Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs.Renuka Ratnakar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025, registered for
the offences under Sections 127(2) /351(2) /351(3) /64(1)/
303(2)/ 352/ 115(2) /126(2) /3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, who
runs a furniture shop, came to the house of the informant for
installing a bed and committed rape with her finding her alone.
Thereafter, giving assurance of marriage, he continued to
establish physical relationship with the informant and also
induced her to part with some ornaments and cash. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15059 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
petitioner refused to marry the informant and threw her out from
his house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. Both the petitioner and the informant are major and they
were in consensual relationship. When the family members of
the petitioner denied marriage of the petitioner with the
informant, then this FIR has been instituted with completely
false allegation. The learned counsel further submits that the
prosecution story is not believable that the petitioner committed
rape two years back, but the informant did not whisper anything
about the commission of this rape either to her family members
or to any other person. She registered the FIR only after undue
delay of two years without any explanation or justification. The
victim was medically examined, but no sign of rape was found.
The learned counsel further submits that the parties have arrived
at some sort of compromise with intervention of common
relatives or well-wishers as both of them belong to same
locality. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
is in custody since 12.01.2026 and is having clean antecedent.
The charge sheet has been submitted.
5. The learned APP submits that there is specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15059 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape with the
informant.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that the informant does not want to pursue
this case and she has entered into a compromise with the
petitioner.
7. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
doubtful nature of allegation against the petitioner and further
considering the period of custody of the petitioner and his clean
antecedent and also considering the submission of charge-sheet
against him, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Kishanganj/court concerned, in connection with Mahila P.S.
Case No. 67 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under
Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15059 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
below, if so required by the learned trial
court.
(iii) In case of absence on three
consecutive dates or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the court concerned.
(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.