Patna High Court
Md. SawezversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, given the delayed FIR, lack of concrete evidence, prior acquittals and apparent ulterior motive, bail must be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Sawez and Md. Chand, sought bail in a case (N.H. Bangra P.S. No.138 of 2025) alleging offences of rape, criminal intimidation, and obscene video under IPC and the IT Act. They argued that the FIR was lodged three years after the alleged incident, was motivated by a land dispute, and that they had been acquitted in earlier related cases filed by the same informant. The State contended that there was sufficient evidence of an objectionable video being circulated. The court examined the delay, lack of documentary evidence, prior acquittals, and possible ulterior motive, and concluded that the allegations did not warrant denial of bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of both petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 each, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of offences under Sections 376, 504, 509, 34 IPC and Sections 67A, 67B IT Act.
- Whether the three‑year delay in filing the FIR raises a presumption of mala fides.
- Whether prior acquittals and the alleged motive of a pending land title suit affect the bail application.
- Whether the absence of documentary evidence of the alleged obscene video justifies bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (or relevant) Statutes — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 376, 504, 509
- Information Technology Act — s. 67A, 67B
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- sexual assault
- obscene video
- delay in FIR
- false allegations
- prior acquittal
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- Information Technology Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29979 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- NATIONAL HIGHWAY District-
Samastipur
======================================================
1. Md. Sawez S/O Md. Akhtar Resident of village- Bazidpur (Bajitpur),
Sarsauna, P.S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur.
2. Md. Chand S/O Shaukat Ali @ Pappu, Resident of village- Bazidpur
(Bajitpur), Sarsauna, P.S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. XYZ S/O ABC Resident of village- Bazidpur, Sarsauna, P.S.- Bangra,
District- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
Ms. Sonia Narayan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Aryans, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in
connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504,
509, 34 of IPC and under Sections 67 (A), 67B, of I.T. Act.
3. As per FIR, petitioners alongwith friend established
physical relationship with informant on 22.10.2022 and when the
marriage of informant was solemnized in year 2023, they made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29979 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/5
objectionable video of their private moment viral and also sent
the same to the husband of the informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that if the allegation as raised through
FIR be accepted true, it can be gathered that these petitioners
nothing committed wrong with informant despite their
acquaintance prior to 22.10.2022 but the same is not the correct
position as this informant lodged a criminal case against
petitioner no. 2 in year 2021 itself which was registered as
Mahila P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021 when the petitioner no. 2 was
juvenile. It is submitted that the implication of petitioner no. 2 in
the criminal case was made due to land dispute for which title
suit no. 125 of 2024 is pending in the Court of Sub-Judge First,
Samastipur. It is also submitted that in Mahila P.S. Case No. 75
of 2021 the petitioner no. 2 was acquitted, which was lodged by
the informant, subsequently, he was also acquitted in N.H.
Bangra P.S. Case No. 131 of 2020 and also in N.H. Bangra P.S.
Case No. 07 of 2021. Explaining criminal antecedent, further it is
submitted that N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, the
petitioner no. 2 is on bail, which was lodged by Md. Usman,
grandfather of the informant, whereas N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No.
111 of 2024 was also lodged by the informant’s side, where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29979 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/5
informant is Saimada Khatoon of village Bazidpur Sarsauna and,
thereafter, one case N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 60/2021 was
lodged against petitioner no. 2 by cousin uncle of the informant,
where he is also on bail. It is submitted that the father of the
informant by using informant, her sister, grandfather and other
relatives lodged several criminal cases against petitioner no. 2 in
which litigation is pending before the appropriate court as
mentioned aforesaid. It is submitted that effectively after
acquittal in three matters his criminal antecedent can be said
effectively of three cases only, where he is on bail and same
appears to have been lodged by the informant and her family
members.
5. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that
the FIR in issue was lodged after three years of occurrence as the
occurrence of the alleged rape is stated to have taken place on
22.10.2022, whereas the FIR in issue was lodged on 05.12.2025
i.e. after three years in a very planned and formulated manner
with an oblique motive just to create a legal pressure to
compromise the title suit pending between the parties.
6. Arguing further, it is submitted that petitioner no. 1,
Md. Sawez is a man of clean antecedent and being cousin brother
and friend of petitioner no. 2 he has been falsely implicated. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29979 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
4/5
submitted that the allegation of making objectionable video viral
is mere an allegation as no documentary evidence was found
annexed in support of the allegation.
7. Learned APP, duly assisted by learned counsel Ms.
Sonia Narayan Sinha, appearing on behalf of the informant, while
opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the allegation to make
an objectionable video viral is specifically available against
petitioners, however, she could not disputed the FIR, which was
earlier lodged by the same informant in year 2021, whereafter,
after facing of trial, the petitioner no. 2 was acquitted by the
Juvenile Court. The pending title suit was also not denied.
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as prima facie the case lodged by the
same informant as Mahila P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021 against
petitioner no. 2 creates a doubt qua present allegation, which
also appears lodged after three years of the occurrence, without
any just explanation, accordingly, both above named petitioners,
in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial
Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, are directed to
be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned Court of Exclusive Spl. Judge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29979 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
5/5
(Rape and POCSO) Samastipur, where the case is pending in
connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.