Patna High Court
Md. Minhaj MansuriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as the victim did not support the prosecution and there were material delays and lack of evidence, subject to bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Minhaj Mansuri, was charged with kidnapping and raping the minor daughter of an informant under Sections 69, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act. He applied for bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to a marital confusion and highlighting a delayed FIR (filed 11 days after the alleged incident) and the absence of medical evidence of sexual assault. The victim, during trial, withdrew support for the prosecution, stating the case was filed at the villagers' behest. The State and the informant opposed bail, but could not refute the victim’s non‑cooperation. Considering the victim’s stance, the FIR delay, and lack of corroborative evidence, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the petitioner’s appearance at every trial date.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged kidnapping and rape under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the victim’s non‑cooperation affect the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication merits bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 69
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 17, 8
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- POCSO Act
- FIR delay
- victim non‑cooperation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73000 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Md. Minhaj Mansuri S/O Md. Moin Mansuri @ Md. Moeen Mansuri R/O
vill.-Pratapnagar, Ward No.-10, P.S- Chhatapur, Dist.-Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Giyasuddin S/O Late Kamruddin R/O vill.- Madhopur, Ward No.-05,
P.S- Chhatanpur, Dist.-Supaul
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Informant Mr. Arun
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 69, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and
Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
3. Petitioner is said to have kidnapped the minor
daughter of the informant and committed rape with her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as
there was some confusion with regard to marriage between the
parties. However, for an incident which is said to have taken place
on 07.05.2025, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay on
18.05.2025 for which no plausible explanation was tendered. It is
further submitted that the medical report also did not indicate any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73000 of 2025(4) dt.11-03-2026
2/2
evidence of sexual assault and during trial the witness has already
been examined as prosecution witness no. 1 in the trial and she has
not supported the case of the prosecution and has rather stated that
she had filed this case at the instance of the villagers and that no
rape was committed upon her. A certified copy of her deposition
has been made available which is kept on record. Further, the
petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for bail but they are not in
a position to controvert the fact that the victim has not supported
the case of the prosecution.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and especially considering the fact that the victim
herself has not supported the prosecution case during the trial, let
the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 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
Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025, subject to the conditions
that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date till
conclusion of trial.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.