Patna High Court
Md. Sabbir @ Sabir @ Md. SaabbirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that continued pre‑trial detention would be punitive and violative of Article 21.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Sabbir, was arrested in May 2025 on charges under Section 95 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the POCSO Act. He had been in judicial custody since 5 May 2025 and his earlier bail application was rejected. Counsel argued that the prolonged pre‑trial detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution and that the trial had progressed minimally, with only one witness examined. The State opposed bail. The Court, noting that continued detention would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of Article 21, granted regular bail on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding family surety and appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the IT Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the trial progress (only one witness examined) justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 95
- Information Technology Act — s. 67, 67(A), 67(B)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 15(1), 15(2)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- cyber offences
- IT Act
- POCSO Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16752 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Sabbir @ Sabir @ Md. Saabbir Son of Md. Jahir Resident of Village -
Belgachi, Ward no. -06, P.S. - Dagarua, District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Niharika Rani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cyber
P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, instituted for the offences under
Section 95 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with
Sections 67, 67(A), 67(B) of the I.T. Act, Sections 15(1) and
15(2) of the POCSO Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated
10.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40622 of 2025 taking into
consideration the ample material against the petitioner to show
his involvement in the alleged offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16752 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.05.2025
without any rhymes or reason and has got no criminal
antecedent. It is also submitted that earlier, liberty was granted
to the petitioner to renew the prayer for grant of bail before the
Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of four
months, but only one witness has been examined in this case
and remaining are yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that the continued incarceration of the
petitioner without conclusion of trial amounts to a gross
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, which reiterated by Hon’ble Apex
Court in plethora of Judgments.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and
taking into account the fact that continued detention of the
petitioner would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial
incarceration, which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16752 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Cyber P.S. Case No.
27 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
the family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…