Patna High Court

Md. Urisa @ Md. AltafversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The petitioner is not entitled to bail as the allegations are serious and the victim’s statements substantiate the prosecution’s case.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Urisa @ Md. Altaf, was charged under Sections 126(2) and 65(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly raping the seven‑year‑old daughter of the informant. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and arguing that the complaint was filed two months after the alleged incident without proper explanation. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence, the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS supporting the prosecution, and the fact that the victim was initially unable to move and was later examined medically. The Court examined the delay, the victim’s testimony, and the gravity of the charges and concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the trial was directed to be expedited.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving alleged rape of a minor under the POCSO Act.
Whether the two‑month delay in lodging the complaint warrants the grant of bail.
Whether the seriousness of the offences under Sections 126(2), 65(2) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act precludes bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 126(2), 65(2)
POCSO Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
rape
POCSO
regular bail
delay in complaint
victim testimony
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50291 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- DHORAIYA District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Urisa @ Md. Altaf S/O Md. Jabbar R/O Village- Fattuchak, P.S-
                 Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sarswati Devi W/O Arun Mandal R/O Village- Falluchak, P.S- Dhoraiya,
                 Distt.- Banka. A/P Daughter of Sagar Mandal R/O Village- Sonudih, P.S-
                 Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
                                                  Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State            :       Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
                 PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   08-01-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

                   informant and learned APP for the State.

                                     2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in

                   connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025, registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 65(2) of the BNS and

                   3/4 of POCSO Act.

                                     3. As per allegation, the petitioner committed rape

                   upon 7 years old daughter of the informant.

                                  4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. He has further submitted that occurrence took place on
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50291 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       26.08.2024 and complaint was filed on 04.10.2024 which shows that

                       there is delay of about two months in lodging the complaint without

                       giving any proper explanation. The petitioner is a person of clean

                       antecedent and is in custody since 16.04.2025.

                                     5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has

                       opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that complaint shows that

                       after commission of rape, the victim was not able even to move and

                       family members of the complainant prohibited her from lodging of

                       this case. Later on, with assistance of other persons, her daughter was

                       medically examined. The victim, in her statements under Section 180

                       and 183 of the BNSS, has supported the prosecution case and

                       described the factum of entire case.

                                    6.    Considering       the    above-mentioned   facts   and

                       circumstances, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve privilege

                       of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

                                    7. The learned Court below is directed to expedite the

                       trial.


                                            (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

priyanka/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…