Patna High Court

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. SabirversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

Bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Golu, was charged under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the POCSO Act for alleged sexual offences against a girl aged 12‑14. He applied for bail, arguing there was no eyewitness, the medical examination found no spermatozoa and no physical signs of assault, and that the case was instigated by a third party. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences, the victim’s recorded statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., and the existence of at least one witness. The court, considering the gravity of the allegations and the victim’s supportive statements, refused bail, noting the petitioner’s custody since December 2024 and clean antecedents. The court allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application after six months if the trial makes no substantial progress.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor under the POCSO Act and B.N.S. provisions despite lack of forensic evidence.
Whether the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 126(2), 127(2), 65(2)
B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 183
POCSO Act — s. 4(2), 8

Subjects

bail
POCSO Act
sexual assault
minor
forensic evidence
victim statement
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48656 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2024 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir Son of Shahzada @ Md. Shahzada R/o vill-
                 Line bazar Hazaratganj (Chhoti Maszid), P.S- Sahayak Khajanchi, District-
                 Purnea
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Shabanam Praveen W/o Jamshed Alam R/o vill - Hazaratganj Chhoti
                  Maszid, ward no. 42, P.S.- Sahayak Khajanchi, Distt.- Purnea
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   17-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(2) of the

                   B.N.S. and Section 4 (2), 8 of the POCSO Act.

                                3. Petitioner is said to have committed wrong with the

                   daughter of the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   there is no eye witness to the incident and the victim girl was

                   subjected to medical examination and no spermatozoa was

                   found and there was no sign of any sexual assault, however, the

                   age of the victim was found between 12 to 14 years. It has

                   further been submitted that the present case has been lodged at
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48656 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       the instigation of one Tutun Alam for certain oblique reasons.

                       Further, the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2024 with clean

                       antecedent.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

                       application for bail on the ground that the present case involves

                       a heinous offence with the minor girl and the victim has also

                       supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under

                       Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. It has further been

                       submitted that the charges have already been in this case and

                       one witness has also been examined.

                                        6. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the

                       allegations and also considering that the case has been

                       supported by the victim in her statement under Section 180 and

                       183 of the B.N.S.S., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner

                       on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected

                       in connection Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024.

                                        7. However, in case no substantial progress is

                       made in the trial within a period of six months, the petitioner

                       would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…