Patna High Court
Md. Mahmood Ansari @ Mahmood AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail because the petitioner was directly implicated in the FIR for allegedly creating and disseminating obscene photographs of a minor, satisfying the criteria for denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Mahmood Ansari, applied for anticipatory bail after being named in FIR No.250 of 2025 for allegedly photographing a 14‑year‑old niece of an informant at a family marriage, editing the image and disseminating it via a fake ID, thereby invoking Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contended that he was innocent and that the facts did not satisfy the elements of Section 66(E). The court examined the FIR, the material on record and the arguments of counsel, and noted the direct allegation of making obscene photographs of a minor and circulating them. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the involvement of a minor, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner given the allegations of making and circulating obscene photographs of a minor.
- Whether the conduct alleged under the FIR falls within the ambit of Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 352
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(E)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- child sexual abuse
- obscene photographs
- Section 66E
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- cyber law
- minor protection
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65225 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Md. Mahmood Ansari @ Mahmood Ansari Son of Jafruddin Ansari Resident
of Mohalla - Madarganj, P.S.- Akorhigola, District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Akorhigola Police Station Case No. 250 of 2025, dated
24.06.2025, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 352/351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that the niece of the informant, aged about 14 years,
visited the house of the informant on the occasion of
marriage in the family, where the petitioner, who is the
neighbour of the informant, took her photograph and after
editing it, made it viral through the fake ID.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65225 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. He further submits that Section 66 (E) of the
Information Technology Act is not made out in the facts
and circumstances of this case. He further submits that
though the supervising authority has directed the
Investigating Officer of this case to get the U.R.L. so that
the person, who has made viral the obscene photographs
of the niece of the informant can be traced, the
Investigating Officer could not get the U.R.L. of the fake
ID till date.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record, including the
impugned order.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is named in the
First Information Report and there is direct allegation
against him of making viral the obscene photographs of a
minor child with her own maternal uncle, I am not
inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…