Patna High Court
Md. SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Md. Saddam, who is in custody, applied for bail in a Mahila Police Station case alleging offences under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner lured the victim, gave her tea, and committed a sexual act before marrying her. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS did not name him and expressed ignorance of the incident. The court noted the absence of the victim’s support in her statement and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and therefore granted bail subject to strict conditions. The order also clarified that any observations made therein would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a rape case under the BNSS and POCSO when the victim’s Section 183 statement does not identify the accused.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing a similar offence if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 64
- Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- BNSS
- POCSO
- victim statement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72256 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhepura
======================================================
Md. Saddam, son of Md. Rahamtulla, Village- Satokhar PS -Singheshwar
District -Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Daughter of Marayi Devi under the guardianship of her mother namely,
Marayi Devi, Resident of Village- Toka, Jiwachhpur, Ps- Gamhariya, Dist-
Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 Despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of
the opposite party no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
3. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.19 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/12 of the Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant/victim
has stated that while she had gone to Singheshwar, she lost her
way, when one boy, namely, Md. Saddam (petitioner), lent his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72256 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
mobile phone for her to call her home, however, the call could
not be connected. It is further alleged that he offered her tea,
upon which she fell unconscious and thereafter she woke up the
next morning and found that the boy had committed wrong act
with her and thereafter he also married her by putting on
vermilion.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on
account of personal dispute and he had no concern whatsoever
with the alleged incident and no such incident as stated has
occurred. It has been pointed out that from perusal of the
statement of the victim made under Section 183 of the BNSS, it
would be evident that she has not taken name of the petitioner
and she had in fact pleaded ignorance as to what had happened
with her. It has further been submitted that the victim in fact had
not even stated that she does not know the name of the person
who has taken her along. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since
03.07.2025.
6. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner was the person
who had taken away the victim along with her sister and had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72256 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
also committed rape as per the original version made in the FIR.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the fact that the victim has not
supported the case in her 183 BNSS statement, let the petitioner,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with Mahila P.S.
Case No.19 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall
be his close relative and the other shall be local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive
dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by
the court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72256 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
in the name of verification.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…