Patna High Court
Md. Salim @ Mohammad Salim Sheikh @ Mohammad salim sekhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were deemed serious and the petitioner’s surrender was directed.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Salim, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the IT Act based on allegations by informant Rehana that she was repeatedly raped, threatened with the release of intimate videos, and extorted for Rs. 4 lakh. The informant claimed the videos were uploaded on Facebook and that the petitioner was behind the threat, while the petitioner contended that the relationship had ended and the Facebook ID did not belong to him. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged intent to damage the victim’s marriage, and the pending investigation into the ownership of the Facebook account. It concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, with directions for further investigation of the Facebook ID and a condition that the petitioner surrender within four weeks for a prompt disposal of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged rape, extortion and threat to upload intimate videos.
- Whether the Facebook ID alleged to belong to the petitioner can be presumed to be his without further investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 308(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 64(1), 77
- Information Technology Act — s. 67(A)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- extortion
- POCSO Act
- IT Act
- cyber evidence
- Facebook ID
- investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66354 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Md. Salim @ Mohammad Salim Sheikh @ Mohammad salim sekh S/o-
Kaishar Alam R/o- Barahalda Goan W.No-13, Ps- Paharkatta Dist-
Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rehana Pravin Rahmani D/o- Abdul Rahman R/o- Konhiya Ps- Kesariya
Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the State and Mr. Vatsal Verma representing the
informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025
for the offence under sections 64(1), 351(2), 351(3), 308(2), 77
and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, section 4 of the POCSO
Act and section 67 (A) of the I.T. Act lodged on 07.05.2025 by
the informant, Rehana Pravin Rehmani.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that since the year 2022, she was raped repeatedly. The
photographs and videos were also captured/recorded. Later, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66354 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
the year 2024, when she got married, he threatened her of
uploading the photographs/videos on the social media
(Facebook). He demanded Rs. 4,00,000/-, a panchayati took
place but allegation is that the video was uploaded. This led to
the FIR.
4. In this case, notice was issued and the opposite
party no. 2 who has appeared and he has produced the Facebook
I.D. of this petitioner alongwith his photographs.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they
were in relationship, subsequently the marriage took place, he
has withdrawn himself but still implicated at the behest of the
husband.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
informant submits that not only he threatened her of dire
consequences but also the videos were uploaded and it is not the
case of the petitioner that the I.D. which is on the Facebook, do
not belong to him.
7. Considering the allegation that has come against
the petitioner coupled with his intention to ruin the marriage of
the girl by uploading the videos despite the panchayati that took
place, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66354 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
rejected.
9. However, since the Dy.S.P has supervised and
directed for further investigation, the I.D. that is on the
Facebook domain should also be investigated as to whether the
same belongs to the petitioner or not.
10. Further, if the petitioner surrenders within four
weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the matter and dispose
it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…