Patna High Court
Rishu Babu @ Md. RaisversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the evidence does not substantiate a charge of forceful sexual intercourse and the victim is an adult.
Summary
The petitioner, identified as Rishu Babu (actually Md. Rais), was charged under Sections 137(2), 96 and 64 of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly luring a minor girl, taking her to Purnea, and having forceful sexual intercourse. The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS claimed she was coerced, but the medical report indicated she was 19‑20 years old, showed no external injuries and only confirmed that intercourse had occurred. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim was an adult, there was no evidence of force, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The informant’s counsel opposed bail, asserting deception and sexual assault. The court examined the victim’s voluntary departure, lack of medical evidence of force, and the age factor, concluding that the prosecution had not established a charge of forceful intercourse. Consequently, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under Sections 137(2), 96, 64 of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act given the victim's age.
- Whether the victim's statement of forceful intercourse is substantiated by medical evidence.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- consent
- age of consent
- medical evidence
- forceful intercourse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70408 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- BARSOI District- Katihar
======================================================
Rishu Babu @ Md. Rais S/O Md. Sahroj Resident of Vill.- Simalbari, Ward
No. 10, P.S.- Rauta, Dist.- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suma Devi W/O Sachida Nand Rai R/O Vill.- Golanda, P.S.- Sudhani, Dist.-
Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Hussain, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sushanta Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Eesha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 &
64 of the BNS and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on
15.04.2025 at 04:00 A.M., the informant found that her minor
daughter was not there in her room. After that she started
searching her. During course of search, she found the diary of his
daughter and there she found a mobile number. She went to the
house of friend of her daughter and she came to know that one
Rishu Babu (petitioner) has given his mobile number and the
daughter of the informant was on talking terms with the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70408 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
During course of investigation the victim was recovered and she
has given her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS wherein
she has stated that she was on talking terms with a boy since 2024
through Instagram. His name was Md. Rais a resident of Purnea.
He introduced himself to the victim of this case as Rishu Babu.
After that they started talking. He called her to Barsoi. On
16.04.2025 she went out of her house without informing anyone.
After that, the petitioner took her to Katihar railway station. He
enticed her to follow him and she was brought to Purnea. She was
kept in a rented room. She started living there. It is further alleged
that in that room, the petitioner has established forceful physical
relationship with the victim. Later on she came to know that the
petitioner is Muslim who has introduced himself to her as Hindu.
She has further stated that she was kept in that room for five days.
She called at her house. It is further alleged that the petitioner
dropped her to her house on 23.04.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
medical examination of the victim was conducted and from the
medical examination of the victim it is clear that the Doctor
conducting medical examination has opined that age of the victim
is 19-20 years and on external examination no injury was found.
On internal examination (i) Vaginal canal loose (ii) Hymen old and
torn. The Doctor has opined that she has undergone sexual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70408 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
intercourse. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it
is a case of affair and as the Doctor has opined that the age of the
victim is 19-20 years; no offence is made out against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is in judicial
custody since 24.04.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant is present and he
has vehemently opposed the bail and has stated that the petitioner
has cheated the victim by posing himself as Rishu Babu whereas
his actual name is Md. Rais.
6. Perused the statement of the victim under Section 183
BNSS wherein she has stated that she was subjected to forceful
sexual intercourse but medical examination does not support this
statement of the victim. Medical examination only supports that
there was intercourse with the victim. From perusal of the
statement of the victim it is also clear that she has gone herself
from her house without disclosing anybody and she followed him
till Purnea; started living with him in a room. This shows that there
was no force or enticement against her. She herself was interested
in the relationship.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The
above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70408 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
connection with Barsoi P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned D.A.S.J.-VII-cum-
Special Judge POCSO, Katihar.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…