Patna High Court
Daniya Karisma @ Daniya KarishmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, given the delay in filing the FIR, the nature of the allegation and the fact that a co‑accused had been granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner is entitled to bail subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Daniya Karisma, sought bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged threats, assault and sexual offences under IPC and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner threatened the victim on 15‑08‑2022, while the defence argued the FIR was lodged after a long delay, was motivated by personal vendetta, and contained inconsistent victim statements. The defence also highlighted that a co‑accused facing identical charges had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed bail, citing the specific accusation and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. Considering the delay, the nature of the allegation, and the precedent of anticipatory bail to the co‑accused, the court ordered bail for the petitioner subject to a bond, sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order was pronounced by Justice Harish Kumar.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of threatening the victim under IPC and POCSO provisions.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused justify granting bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 180, 183, 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 376, 506/34
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- BNSS
- threat
- sexual assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39108 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2026 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Daniya Karisma @ Daniya Karishma Wife of Sahid Ali, Daughter of
Khurshid Anwar @ Md Khurshid Anwar @ Md Jawed Choudhary Resident
of Mohalla- Chaudhriyana, Near Masjid, Tari Mohalla, P.S.- Ara Town,
District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Miss X D/o- Md. Shamshad Resident of Mohalla- Chaudhriyana, P.S.- Ara
Town, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution
alleges that sometime in the year 2022, co-accused Faiz Alam @
Sikander allegedly molested the victim and thereafter threatened
her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that on
15.07.2022, the brother of Faiz Alam @ Sikander, namely,
Prince @ Harun Iqbal, also subjected the victim to sexual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39108 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
assault. The prosecution further alleges that on 02.04.2026,
when the entire matter was brought to the notice of the family
members of the aforesaid accused persons, the present
petitioner, who happens to be their sister, allegedly threatened
the victim with dire consequences.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, taking this
Court through the FIR, contended that the alleged occurrence
took place on 11.06.2022 and further on 15.07.2022. The victim
was working as a domestic help in the family and subsequently,
owing to disputes and animosity between the husband of the
petitioner and his brothers, the present FIR has been instituted
with an ulterior motive to settle personal score. Moreover, even
if the allegation is taken to be true for the sake of argument, so
far as the petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that she had
threatened the victim long back on 15.08.2022, and the present
FIR has been instituted on 12.04.2026. In such circumstances,
the possibility of false implication and deliberation in lodging
the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. It is further contended
that the co-accused against whom there is identical allegation of
causing threat to the victim is concerned, he has been extended
the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38241 of 2026. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39108 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
contended that although the statements of the victim were
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, there are
material inconsistencies therein and moreover the entire
criminal prosecution appears to be mala fide and suffers from
non-application of mind, inasmuch as despite the coming into
force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with effect from
01.07.2024, the present FIR has been registered under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the bail application and submitted that there is a
specific accusation against the petitioner of causing threat to the
victim, besides she being a woman is facing four criminal
antecedent.
6. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that out of four criminal cases, in two of them the police
submitted final form showing the petitioner as innocent, and the
remaining two cases were instituted by the full brother of the
petitioner's husband, on which the petitioner is on bail.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the delay in lodging of the FIR, coupled with the nature of the
allegation and the fact that the co-accused person having
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39108 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
identical allegation has been allowed the privilege of
anticipatory bail, let the above named petitioner, be released on
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/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Exclusive Special Court of POCSO Act-cum-District &
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Bhojpur at Ara in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2026, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.