Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Aftab Ansari @ Aftaf AnsariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
REJECTED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted and refused the petition.

Summary

Petitioner Aftab Ansari applied for bail after being in custody since 17 January 2026 in connection with a case alleging kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, forcibly abducted a 16‑year‑old girl and sexually assaulted her, citing the victim's statement and medical report. The petitioner contended he has a clean record and was falsely implicated, arguing that the FIR lacks specific allegations against him. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the BNS and POCSO Acts. The court, after considering the facts, declined to grant bail, refusing the petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act
  • Whether the victim's statement and medical report justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • kidnapping
  • sexual assault
  • minor
  • POCSO
  • criminal procedure
  • bail refusal

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19297 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2025 Thana- SONO District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Aftab Ansari @ Aftaf Ansari Son of Musho Miyan Resident of village -
                 Mogal Chapri, P.S. Sono, District - Jamui
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Y Son of Ramdhani Pandit Resident of village - Mogal Chapri, P.S.- Sono,
                  District - Jamui
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Parties
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                          :        Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-04-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   17.01.2026 in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and

                   3(5) of BNS and Sections 4 and 12 of POCSO Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that O.P.

                   No.2 lodged written application addressed to the Officer

                   Incharge of Sono Police Station stating therein inter alia that his

                   daughter 'x' aged 16 years went out of the house on

                   5.2.2025 at around 4.00 A.M. when her neighbour Aftab Ansari

                   (petitioner), Aasir Miyan @ Chamru Miyan, Dablu Ansari,

                   Kitabul Ansari, Alam Ansari, Atiya Khatoon, wife of Nasir

                   Miyan, wife of Kitabul Ansari, wife of Alam, wife of Dablu

                   Ansari under a conspiracy forcibly kidnapped his daughter on

                   vehicle bearing registration no. BR46M9034 and the same was
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19297 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     done by Aftab Ansari. He tried to locate his daughter but failed.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                     petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

                     implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that

                     there is no specific allegation against the petitioner.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the

                     basis of the impugned order has vehemently opposed the prayer

                     for bail and submits that victim in her statement recorded under

                     Section 183 of BNSS has fully supported the case of the

                     prosecution. Apart from that the medical report of the victim

                     suggests that she has been sexually assaulted by the petitioner

                     and date of birth of victim is 08.01.2009 which suggests that on

                     the date of occurrence the victim was a minor.

                                  6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                     case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

                     connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025 pending in the

                     court of learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Jamui.

                                  7. Prayer is refused.



                                            (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.