Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. Margub @ Md. MargufversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail, finding that the specific allegation of rape against the petitioner justified refusal of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Margub, was named in an FIR for alleged penetrative sexual assault/rape of a 15‑year‑old girl, alleged to have occurred on 10 October 2025. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the complaint was false, stemming from neighborhood disputes, and that medical examination showed the victim’s age to be between 16‑18 years with no incriminating evidence. The prosecution, represented by the State and the victim’s counsel, argued that the specific charge of rape under the BNS and POCSO Acts was made against the petitioner, and the victim’s statement under Section 183 supported the allegation. The court examined the seriousness of the charge and the presence of a specific allegation against the petitioner. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application, holding that the allegations warranted denial of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner when a specific charge of rape/penetrative sexual assault under the BNS and POCSO Acts is made against him.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 64
  • POCSO Act — s. 4, 6

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • rape
  • POCSO Act
  • criminal procedure
  • medical evidence
  • false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7368 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2025 Thana- AMAUR District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Margub @ Md. Marguf Son of Md. Yakub Resident of village -
                 Murajpur, Masjid Kachi Road, Buari, P.S.- Dagarua, District - Purnea
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     XX Daughter of Md. Mukhtar R/o village - Pothia Ward No.- 6, P.S.-
                  Amour, District - Purnea.
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sumit Kumar Bhagat, Adv
                                          :       Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak, Adv
                                          :       Mrs. Suman Kumari, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Bijendra Kr. Singh, Adv
                                          :       Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-03-2026                   Heard the parties.

                                    2. The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and

                   apprehended his arrest in connection with Amour P.S. Case No.

                   450 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 64, 126(2), 115(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and

                   Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

                                    3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit

                   penetrative sexual assault/rape upon informant aged about 15

                   years when she went outside to attend nature’s call on

                   10.10.2025 at 10:00 PM.

                                    4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7368 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
                                                           2/2




                         petitioner submitted that due to neighborhood disputes and

                         differences, petitioner falsely implicated with the present case. It

                         is pointed out that victim upon radiological examination found

                         between the age group of 16-18 years and further no

                         incriminating material surfaced during the course of medical

                         examination, which may suggest that rape/penetrative sexual

                         assault was committed upon her. While concluding the argument

                         it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

                                         5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for

                         the informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail

                         submitted that allegation of committing rape/penetrative sexual

                         assault upon informant aged about 15 years is specifically

                         available against this petitioner. Victim also supported this fact

                         while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS.

                                      6. In view of the facts and circumstances and by taking

                         note of the fact as allegation of rape/penetrative sexual assault is

                         specifically available against petitioner, accordingly prayer of

                         anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected.


                                                                 (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.