Patna High Court
Manjar Alam @ ManjarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manjar Alam applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a rape case involving the deaf‑and‑dumb daughter of an informant. The informant alleged that the victim was raped on 19‑May‑2025 and that the petitioner’s family attempted to abort the pregnancy. The FIR, filed on 29‑Nov‑2025, recorded a delay of more than three months from the alleged incident. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent and that the delay should preclude prosecution, while the State contended that the seriousness of the offence and the victim’s testimony under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warranted denial of bail. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the gravity of the allegations and the continued investigation did not justify granting anticipatory bail and therefore rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged rape of a differently‑abled victim.
- Whether a delay of over three months in filing the FIR is fatal to the prosecution.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence outweighs the petitioner’s claim of clean antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 183, 3(5), 352, 64, 89
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- differently‑abled victim
- delay in FIR
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40677 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2025 Thana- RAUTA District- Purnia
======================================================
Manjar Alam @ Manjar S/O Late Md. Muslim Resident of village- Rasulganj,
Ward no.- 6, P.S.- Routa, District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Abdus Samad S/O Md. Abbas Resident of village- Rasulganj, Ward no.- 6,
P.S.- Routa, District- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bidhu Ranjan, Adv
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Adv
Ms. Trisha, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Routa P.S. Case No. 291 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 89, 352 and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges
that her deaf and dumb daughter was having constant stomach pain,
hence she was taken to health centre at Baisi on 6-8-2025 at 11 am
and the doctor disclosed that she is pregnant based on ultrasound
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40677 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
report, further the victim also indicated in sign language that on 19-5-
2025 at 6 pm, when she had gone to attend nature’s call, petitioner on
point of knife raped her, accordingly the informant along with the
victim went to the house of the petitioner when his family members
abused, assaulted and tried to forcibly administer medicine to the
victim for aborting the pregnancy, but on alarm people gathered and
they were saved.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it would
manifest that the date of occurrence is 6-8-2025 and the FIR came to
be instituted on 29-11-2025, i.e., after a delay of more than three
months.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant, Ms. Trisha, opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant submits that there is a specific allegation
against the petitioner that he raped the deaf and dumb daughter of the
informant and there is no rebuttal of the said allegation in the instant
anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that at the time
when the FIR was instituted, the victim was pregnant and
subsequently she gave birth to a child and the child was born on
account of rape being committed by the petitioner on 19-5-2025. It is
further submitted that statement of the victim was recorded under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40677 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
Section 183 BNSS, wherein she supported the case of the
prosecution in sign language. It is next submitted that merely
because the FIR came to be instituted after some delay, the same
cannot be considered fatal for the prosecution. It is also submitted
that had the petitioner not committed rape of the victim, in that event,
at least a plea would have been taken in the anticipatory bail
application that he has not committed rape, but then the plea of delay
in instituting the FIR has been raised.
6. At this stage, learned APP submits that investigation of
the case is continuing and the allegations are serious that petitioner
committed rape of a differently abled girl.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the submission made by learned APP and
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is
not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.