Patna High Court
Md. SanaullahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations involve a minor and serious offences, and the alibi is a matter for trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Sanaullah, was arrested in connection with a case registered under IPC sections 354B, 366A, 511 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12 for allegedly sexually harassing a girl who was on her way to school. The petitioner claimed the victim was a major and that he was in Chennai at the time of the alleged incident, invoking an alibi. The State produced evidence that the victim’s date of birth (04‑02‑2008) made her a minor on the date of occurrence (30‑06‑2024) and highlighted that the harassment led to two divorces. The court noted that the alibi is a matter of evidence to be examined at trial and, given the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s minority, rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged sexual harassment of a minor under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of being in Chennai (alibi) can be considered at the bail stage.
- Whether the victim’s age at the time of the alleged incident qualifies the offences under the POCSO Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354B, 366A, 511
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- sexual harassment
- minor
- POCSO Act
- IPC
- alibi
- divorce
- criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37678 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2024 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Sanaullah son of Md. Habibur Rahman @ Habibur Rahman @ Md.
Habibur Resident of village - Kajra Betauna, Police Station - Kasba, Dist-
Purnea
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ Daughter of Md. Johak village- Gearwaghat, Ps- kasba, Dist- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-01-2026 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 Kasba P.S. Case
No. 232 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 354B, 366A, 511 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, on the basis of complaint
case bearing No. 34 of 2024 dated 17.08.2024, filed before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea for the
occurrence dated 30.06.2024.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to sexually
harass the informant/complainant while she was on way to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37678 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026
2/4
attend her Madarsa School on repeated occasions, consequent
of which, the act of petitioner came into the knowledge of
husband of the complainant and, therefore, she was divorced
as per their personal law.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that victim was major at the time of
occurrence as nothing appears available in support of the
same. It is pointed out that there is nothing in complaint
petition which may attract the offence punishable under
section 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that prior to
this occurrence the father of petitioner lodged a complaint
case against the informant and her family members and,
therefore, to counter the said case, making the victim
instrumental, the present false case was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner at the time of occurrence was in Chennai and
therefore, the allegation is completely false on its face.
6. Upon perusal of record, it appears that notice was
issued by this Court which served upon the father of the
informant. Despite of valid service of notice, none appeared
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37678 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026
3/4
on behalf of the informant/complainant.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
from the case diary, it appears that the date of birth of victim
is 04.02.2008, as issued from Bihar State Madarsa
Examination Board, Patna and, therefore, apparently she was
minor on the date of occurrence.
8. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that for the
harassment, as alleged to be caused by this petitioner, the
first husband of the complainant divorced her, whereafter she
was subsequently married to another person, but petitioner
failed to change his behavior and even the second husband of
complainant divorced her knowing the fact that she was
molested or harassed sexually by this petitioner.
9. It is further submitted that aforesaid allegation was
also supported by victim while recording her statement under
section 183 of the B.N.S.S. It is finally submitted by learned
A.P.P. that it is not a case of love affairs.
10. It is also pointed out by learned A.P.P. for the
State that the plea, as taken by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37678 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026
4/4
petitioner that at the time of occurrence he was in Chennai is
“plea of alibi” which is the “rule of evidence” and same can be
taken care at the time of trial only.
11. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact that due to repeated act of sexual
harassment, complainant was divorced twice and further upon
perusal of Madarsa Board certificate, prima-facie it appears
that on the date of occurrence complainant/victim was minor,
accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands
rejected for the present.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…