Patna High Court
Md. Musarif @ Md. MusarafversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted on the ground of delay, lack of medical evidence, and the complainant’s own statement of non‑involvement.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Musarif, was implicated in a FIR alleging that he forcibly abducted a woman, confined her, and raped her, invoking Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the FIR was lodged after an unjustified seven‑day delay and that no medical evidence of injury existed. The petitioner also submitted that the complainant herself later appeared before the court stating his non‑involvement, and that a prior FIR had been filed against him by his own family, suggesting a retaliatory motive. The State opposed the bail on the basis of the allegations in the FIR. The Court, noting the delay, the absence of medical proof, and the complainant’s own declaration, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 64(1) of BNSS.
- Whether the seven‑day delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify bail.
- Whether the complainant’s statement of non‑involvement affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 482(2), 64(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape allegation
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- BNSS
- Cr.P.C.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23423 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- RAUTARA District- Katihar
======================================================
Md. Musarif @ Md. Musaraf S/o Md. Syed @ Sayed Ali @ Said Ali Resident
of Village- Dhangama Pipra, P.S.- RanipatraMuffasil, District-Purnia
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2) and 64(1) of the B.N.S.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is
that the petitioner took away the informant forcibly on a Toto,
locked her in a home and committed rape upon her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case has been filed implicating the petitioner in a totally
false case as the present First Information Report has been
lodged after a delay of seven days for which no explanation has
been tendered and it is also surprising that no FIR was lodged
by the family members of the informant in these seven days. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23423 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
is further submitted that the informant also lodged the present
FIR only two days after her escaping from the place of
occurrence. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had been
kidnapped and had been kept captive by the members of his
matrimonial family for which an FIR had been lodged by his
brother (Annexure-P/3) and only in retaliation of the same, a
false person has been stage-managed to implicate the present
petitioner. There is no mark of injury found on the body of the
victim as would be evident from the medical report (Annexure-
P/2). Further, a compromise petition has also been filed before
the Court concerned (Annexure-P/4) and the bail rejection order
also indicates that the informant had herself appeared before the
Court to state that the petitioner was not involved in the
occurrence.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First
Information Report.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the informant herself
has appeared in the Court stating about non-involvement of the
petitioner, coupled with the factum of delay and absence of any
medical evidence, let the above named petitioner, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23423 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Rautara P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of
the Cr.P.C/ Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…