Patna High Court

Md. Mukhtar AnsariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Petitioner Md. Mukhtar Ansari applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Case No. 142/2024) alleging rape of a 13‑year‑old girl and other offences under IPC sections 376, 323, 342, 504, 506, 34 and POCSO Act section 4. The prosecution claims the petitioner raped the informant’s minor daughter, while the petitioner contends he is falsely implicated, citing a medical report that the victim was aged 16‑19 and showed no fresh injuries. The State opposed bail, noting the victim’s corroborative statement recorded under CrPC section 183. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the serious nature of the allegations and the victim’s statement warranted denial of anticipatory bail. The petition was rejected and the petitioner was ordered to surrender within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO statutes.
Whether the medical report indicating the victim’s age and lack of fresh injuries negates the basis for bail.
Whether the victim’s statement under CrPC section 183 is sufficient to refuse anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 342, 376, 504, 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4

Subjects

anticipatory bail
rape
POCSO
IPC
false implication
victim statement
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3371 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Mukhtar Ansari S/o Late Kaiyyum Ansari Resident of Village - Rampur,
                 Ward no. 09, P.S - Forbesganj, District - Araria
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XXX S/o YYY R/o Village - Rampur South, Ward No. 09, P.S - Forbesganj,
                  District - Araria
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
                 For the O.P. No.2       :        None
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   22-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite

                   party no.2.

                                2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection

                   with Forbesganj P.S. Case no.142 of 2024, registered under

                   sections 376, 323, 342, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to

                   have committed rape on the 13 year old minor daughter of the

                   informant.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place. The medical

                      report does not support the prosecution case insofar as the

                      alleged victim was found to be aged between 16 to 19 years and

                      in the opinion of the doctor there was no evidence of any fresh

                      sexual assault.

                                   5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by

                      learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that the victim has

                      supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under

                      section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023/164 of the Cr.P.C.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the direct allegation against the

                      petitioner of having committed rape on the daughter of the

                      informant together with the allegations having been supported

                      by the victim in her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S.,

                      2023/164 of the Cr.P.C, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the

                      petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

                                   7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned

                      Court below within a period of four weeks.



                                                        (Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…