Patna High Court

Md. Dilsad @ Md. DilshadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The court held that, given the serious nature of the rape allegation and the informant’s corroborated statement under section 183, bail could not be granted.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Dilsad, applied for regular bail under section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 67 of the Information & Technology Act in connection with a rape case (FIR No. 272 of 2025). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner raped a woman, recorded the act, and circulated the video. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a loan dispute, highlighted a seven‑day delay in filing the FIR, the absence of a video, and a medical report that did not support the charge. The State opposed bail, noting that the informant had reiterated the allegations in a statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the seriousness of the allegations and the informant’s corroborated statement warranted denial of bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail can be granted to the accused under section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in a rape case involving alleged video evidence.
Whether the informant’s statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. is sufficient to deny bail.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical or video evidence affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 183, 64
Information Technology Act — s. 67

Subjects

bail
rape
section 64 B.N.S.S.
section 67 IT Act
section 183 B.N.S.S.
FIR delay
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73336 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2025 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Dilsad @ Md. Dilshad S/O Hakimuddin @ Hakimudeen Resident of
                 Village- Madhubani, Ward No. 07, Amhara, Police Station- Forbesganj,
                 District- Araria
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   21-01-2026                    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case

                   no.272 of 2025 registered under section 64 of the Bhartiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 67 of the Information &

                   Technology Act.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that the petitioner committed rape on her, made a video of the

                   same, and made it viral.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of

                   his demanding back the amount of loan that he had given to the

                   informant. There is an unexplained delay of 7 days in lodging of

                   the F.I.R. No video has transpired in course of investigation. The
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73336 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       medical report does not support the prosecution case and there is

                       no eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that

                       from the contents of the FIR itself it would transpire that the

                       reason for false implication was that the informant has strained

                       relations with her uncle in-law with whom the petitioner was on

                       visiting terms. The petitioner is in custody since 5.6.2025 and

                       has no criminal antecedent.

                                    5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                       for the State, who submits that the informant has supported the

                       prosecution case in her statement under section 183 of the

                       B.N.S.S.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                       taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in

                       the FIR together with the informant having supported the

                       allegations in her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S,

                       the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the

                       application is rejected.

                                    7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.



                                                   (Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…