Patna High Court
Md. Masnoon @ MasnoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Masnoon, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (Amaur P.S. Case No. 227 of 2024) alleging rape and penetrative sexual assault of the informant's daughter, a minor, under IPC sections 376, 385 and POCSO Act section 6. The petitioner argued that the alleged victim was actually 22 years old, citing a school certificate, and that medical examination revealed no incriminating evidence, while also noting the absence of a seized video. The informant’s counsel, on behalf of the victim, presented a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. asserting that the petitioner committed rape, recorded a video, and that the victim was a minor according to a Madarsa Board certificate (DOB 01‑01‑2008). The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s recorded statement. Considering the victim’s statement under Section 164 and the conflicting age evidence, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations of rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act.
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the age discrepancy affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 385
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- age of victim
- sexual assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74108 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2024 Thana- AMAUR District- Purnia
======================================================
Md. Masnoon @ Masnoon S/o Md. Mamnoon R/o Barbatta, Ward No.5, P.S.-
Amaur, Distt.- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Md. Jubair Alam, S/o Late Latif, R/o Barbatta, Ward No.5, P.S.- Amaur,
Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Fazle Karim, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amaur P.S. Case No. 227 of 2024 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 376, 385 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit
rape/penetrative sexual assault upon minor daughter of the
informant aged about 16 years.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that during course of investigation the
victim was found aged about 22 years even as per her school
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74108 of 2024(4) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
certificate her date of birth was found as 01.01.2003 as issued by
Bihar School Examination Board. It is submitted that out of
neighbourhood disputes and differences, the petitioner was
implicated falsely with present case.
5. Arguing further, it is pointed out by learned counsel
that upon medical examination nothing incriminating was found by
the doctor, which may suggest prima facie that alleged rape was
committed upon minor daughter of the informant. It is also
submitted that video which alleged to be made viral was also not
seized during the course of investigation as to ascertain the
veracity of the allegation.
6. Concluding argument, it is submitted that victim
already married with someone else and, further, petitioner is a
man of clean antecedent.
7. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Fazle Karim, appearing on behalf
of the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that
during course of investigation the statement of victim was
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., where she categorically
stated that this petitioner committed rape upon her and captured
the video of rape through his mobile and, thereafter, same was
made viral to social media platform. It is submitted that non
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74108 of 2024(4) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
finding of medical injury does not lead to conclusion ipso facto that
rape was not committed upon. Contradicting the age, it is pointed
out that during investigation the victim found minor in terms of
Madarsa Board Certificate as her age on the date of occurrence
was about 16 years, considering her date of birth as 01.01.2008.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as the allegation qua committing penetrative
sexual assault/rape is available against this petitioner in terms of
the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
accordingly the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands
rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…