Patna High Court
Md. Firoz @ Sonu Devan @ Firoj AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the rape allegation was supported by the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Firoz, was named in an FIR for alleged rape of a woman over 18 years old and for capturing and threatening to disseminate photographs and videos, offences punishable under Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the victim was in a consensual relationship with him and that the allegations were false. The State opposed the bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S., which affirmed the rape allegation, and argued that lack of medical injury does not negate the offence. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the victim’s recorded statement, and the existence of a pending criminal case against the petitioner. Concluding that the allegations were substantiated, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case of alleged rape under Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the IT Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. suffices to deny anticipatory bail despite the absence of medical injury.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 64
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(E)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- sexual offence
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- IT Act
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26751 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran
======================================================
Md. Firoz @ Sonu Devan @ Firoj Alam Son of Wojair Devan @ Vajul Devan
Resident of Village- Damutola PS -Chakiya District -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.. ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prateek Tandon, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.
87 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
64 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’)
and section 66(E) of the I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned
S.D.J.M., East Champaran, Motihari.
3. As per FIR, petitioner committed rape upon the
informant and also captured photos and videos of said private
moment. It is alleged that petitioner threatened the informant to
make the photos and videos viral through social media.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that even the FIR suggest that the informant who is
more than 18 years was in talking terms with the petitioner, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
is working in Saudi Arabia. It is submitted that the informant
was desirous to solemnize marriage with the petitioner much
prior to the occurrence and as same was not accepted by the
petitioner and his parents, the present false implication was
raised.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel drawn
attention towards the statement of victim as recorded under
section 183 of the B.N.S.S. where she categorically stated that
she is desirous to solemnize her marriage with this petitioner.
Explaining criminal antecedent, it is submitted that petitioner
found involved in one more criminal case, where he is on bail.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned
counsel for the informant, while opposing the prayer of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that specific
allegation of committing rape is available against this petitioner
which is duly supported through statement of victim recorded
under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and, therefore, present is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that non-
finding of any injury during the medical examination does not
lead to conclusion ipso facto that rape was not committed upon
the informant.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
note of the fact as allegation to commit rape is specifically
available against this petitioner which is duly supported by the
statement of the victim recorded under section 183 of the
B.N.S.S., accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of the
petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…