Patna High Court
Fahim AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, finding that the POCSO Act may not apply and that the petitioner’s circumstances warranted bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Fahim Ansari, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and the POCSO Act concerning the alleged abduction and attempted marriage of a 19‑year‑old woman. The informant claimed the woman was 19, but the investigating officer’s counter‑affidavit, based on an educational register, indicated she was born on 01‑09‑2007, making her 17‑18 at the time of the alleged incident, raising the question of POCSO applicability. The petitioner argued that the FIR’s age claim was false and that no official document supported the younger age. The court examined the age discrepancy, the petitioner’s clean record, and the seriousness of the charges, and decided to grant anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including a cash bail, sureties, and compliance with procedural directives. The order also directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court and prohibited tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the POCSO Act is attracted given the dispute over the victim's age
- Whether the FIR’s statement on the victim’s age is sufficient to sustain the charges
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 137(2), 140(3), 3(5), 351, 351(2), 64(1), 96
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- POCSO Act
- age of victim
- FIR
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- sexual offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56953 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2025 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Fahim Ansari S/o Abdul Slam Ansari R/o Village - Murli, P.S - Gaunaha,
Bharhava, District - West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Najma Khatun W/o Nesar Ali R/o Village - Murli, P.S - Gaunaha, Bharhava,
District - West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rishabh Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 25-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rishabh Mishra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025 for the offence
registered under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 351(2), 351, 3(5), 96,
64(1) of the BNS and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act lodged
on 26.03.2025 by the informant Nazma Khatun.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that her 19 years old, married daughter left her home and the
allegation is that this petitioner took her away. Both used to talk
to each other and the allegation is that he took her on pretext of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56953 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
solemnizing marriage. However, the family members refused, as
she could not found her daughter, Panchayat took place and they
refused to marry. Hence, this case.
4. In this case, notices were issued to the opposite
party no. 2 and the service report shows that it was duly served
on 12.01.2026 but there is no appearance. The office reports
record that it has been validly served.
5. In view of the fact that the FIR shows the age of the
girl to be 19 years, this Court wanted the Investigating Officer
to file counter affidavit as to how POCSO Act gets attracted.
6. The counter affidavit has come according to which
the educational register shows her date of birth as 01.09.2007
and as such, on the date of occurrence (20.03.2025), she was
between 17 to 18 years.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all
through the FIR to the statement of the victim girl, she has
narrated her age as 19 years and only to implicate the petitioner,
this educational register has been provided, no official document
has been produced and this shall be taken up at an appropriate
stage before the Court concerned.
5. This Court has also gone through the counter
affidavit which shows that the girl in the statement under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56953 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
Section 183 of the BNSS has narrated that she went on her own
and lived with the petitioner for some time. This Court has also
taken note of the age of the petitioner which is 21 years, has no
criminal antecedent, in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is
inclined to grant him the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioner in the event of arrest or surrender
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Bettiah,
West Champaran, Bihar in connection with Gaunaha P.S. Case
No. 51 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioner, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56953 of 2025(5) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…