Patna High Court
Md. HaroonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Haroon, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 318(4) and 61 of the B.N.S., Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging sexual intercourse with a 15‑year‑old girl under a false promise of marriage, procurement of a fraudulent Aadhar card, a sham marriage and demand for dowry. The petitioner claimed he had a clean record, that the relationship was consensual, and that the allegations were false. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the victim’s minority, the seriousness of the offences and the alleged manipulation of identity documents. The Court examined the allegations, the minor status of the victim and the nature of the offences, and concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person accused of offences under the B.N.S., D.P. Act and POCSO Act involving a minor victim.
- Whether the alleged consensual nature of the relationship and the claim of false implication negate the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing the victim in a case involving sexual offences and dowry demand.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- minor
- sexual offences
- POCSO Act
- false marriage
- dowry
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15547 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2025 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Md. Haroon S/O Akhtar Alam Resident of Marghiya Sadar tola, P.S. Barari,
District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XX W/O YY R/V - Marghiya, Sadar Tola, P.S. - Barari, Dist. - Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hasnain Haider
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Barari P. S. Case No.265 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 318(4) and 61 of the
B.N.S., Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P. Act and Sections 4 and 6 of
the POCSO Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that her minor daughter aged about 15 years
used to go to Madarsa. Further, petitioner, who is son of her
brother in-law, used to tease her and subsequently, started
establishing physical relation on false promise of marriage, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15547 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
account of which, the victim became pregnant, thereafter a
Panchayati was held and petitioner has accepted his guilt. It is
next alleged that petitioner along with other accused persons in
absence of her husband got aadhar card of the victim made
showing her as a major and married her with an intent to save
himself from a criminal case. Further, her husband on coming to
know about the same by the informant came home from
Mumbai, when victim gave birth to a child on 28.05.224. It is
next alleged that petitioner despite being told by the Panches to
take victim to her matrimonial home did not take her rather
started demanding dowry of Rs.3 Lacs.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
relationship was purely consensual with no promise of marriage.
5. On query of the Court whether the child belongs to
the petitioner or not, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner fairly submitted that he has instruction to
make submission that the child is his, but then, there was no
promise of marriage nor petitioner married the victim.
6. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15547 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
bail application and submits that the victim is a minor aged
about 15 years and specific allegation is alleged against the
petitioner that he fraudulently got aadhar card of the victim
made showing her as a major and even married her, but later it
appears that petitioner resiled. It is also submitted that on query
of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly
submitted that child belongs to him, but then, one can well
imagine the plight of a minor.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…