Patna High Court

Pakija Khatoon @ PhulloversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The Court denied bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Pakija Khatoon applied for bail in a case registered as Mahua P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025, alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleges that she enticed an informant and subsequently forced a physical relationship with her. The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated due to local political enmity and highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR. The State, supported by the informant, relied on the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the charge‑sheet filed under multiple sections of the BNSS and POCSO Act. After considering the victim’s statement and the seriousness of the charges, the Court declined to grant bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in light of the victim's statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and alleged political motives affect the bail eligibility
Applicability of bail provisions for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 126(7), 137(2), 3(5), 351, 351(2), 64, 70(2), 87, 96
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6

Subjects

bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
POCSO Act
sexual offences
victim statement
FIR delay
false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53962 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Pakija Khatoon @ Phullo W/O Md. Warish @ Md Basir R/O village -
                 Beruadih, P.S.- Bariyarpur, District - Muzaffarpur

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    X C/O Md. Isha D/O Md. Isha R/O village - Beruadih, P.S.- Bariyarpur,
                 District - Muzaffarpur

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   20-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Perused

                   the case diary.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mahua

                   P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025 instituted for the offences under

                   Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 351, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

                               3. Allegation against the accused persons is of enticing

                   away the informant and thereafter establishing physical

                   relationship with her forcefully.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner is an innocent lady and has falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53962 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
                                            2/3




          the present case due to previous enmity and local party politics.

          Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of two

          days in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation,

          which in itself, raises doubt over the prosecution story. Learned

          counsel further submitted that the entire prosecution case is

          false and concocted. It has been submitted on behalf of the

          petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2025 and

          has no criminal antecedent.

                      5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

          the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to

          the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that victim in her

          statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS has

          corroborated the contents of the FIR, and therefore, the

          petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Learned APP

          further submitted that police, after completion of investigation,

          submitted charge-sheet under Sections 126(7), 96, 70(2), 351(2)

          of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the

          POCSO Act against the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case as also Section 183 BNSS statement of the victim,

          this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this

          stage.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53962 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the

                     petitioner is, hereby, rejected.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…