Patna High Court
ARYAN KUMAR @ AZAD @ MD. AZADversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The court held that bail cannot be granted in view of the serious nature of the offences and the material evidence on record.
Summary
The petitioner, Aryan Kumar alias Md. Azad, was charged under IPC sections 376, 420 and 506 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly establishing a physical relationship with a minor Hindu girl under the pretext of offering her a job, threatening and blackmailing her with videos and photographs. The petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents and that the allegations were vague, seeking regular bail. The State opposed bail, arguing the case involved "love jihad," the petitioner’s false religious identity, and his marital status, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the FIR, victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, and the Special Judge’s order, finding the allegations credible and the offences grave. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner's prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation of a minor.
- Whether the alleged "love jihad" motive and the seriousness of the offences justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 420, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- minor
- love jihad
- IPC
- rape
- criminal intimidation
- cheating
- blackmail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82594 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- Lalmatia District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Aryan Kumar @ Azad @ Md. Azad, aged about 37 years, Male Son of Late
Md. Wahid, resident of village- Bhirkanpur Gumti No- 3 near Raju Lohar
P.S.- Ishakchak District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXXXXX, Resident of Village- Chhajjupur P.S.- Lalmathiya District-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
POCSO Case No. 126 of 2024 arising out of Lalmatiya P.S.
Case No.28 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner on the
pretext of providing job to the daughter of the informant has
established physical relationship with her revealing his wrong
identity as Aryan instead of Md. Azad and threatened her not to
say anyone about this fact.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82594 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that all the
allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in Paragraph No.- 3
of the petition and he is in custody since 02.06.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that the religion of minor
victim girl is ‘Hindu’ whereas petitioner is a ‘Muslim’ and in
this case, petitioner has falsely represented himself as a ‘Hindu
Man’ and his real name is ‘Md. Azad’. In pretext of giving her
job, he established physical relationship with the victim girl. So
this case clearly falls within the ambit of ‘Love Jihad’ which is a
serious nature of offence and dangerous to our society as a
whole. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is already married,
having two wives which is evident from the statement of the
victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In these
circumstances, petitioner shall not be granted bail.
6. From perusal of the FIR, case diary, statement of
the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also by
perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional
District and Sessions Judge-VI Bhagalpur, it appears that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82594 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
petitioner established physical relationship with the victim girl
(Hindu Minor Girl) several times on the pretext of providing job
to her and threatened her not to say anyone about this fact, or
else she has to face serious consequences. Moreover, it seems
that petitioner has concealed his fake identity before the victim
girl i.e., his real name is ‘Md. Azad’ but he allured the victim
girl revealing his identity as ‘Aryan’. It also appears that
petitioner had made videographs and took photos of all the
intimate moments between them. Moreover, petitioner use to
blackmail her and threatened her that he will viral all the videos
as well as photographs of the intimate moments on the Social
Media which will be drastic to the victim minor in future. The
victim has also stated in her statement before the learned
Magistrate in which the victim girl has fully supported the
version/story as mentioned in the FIR. It appears from the
materials available on the record that this type of shameful acts
committed by the petitioner is not at all tolerable and this type
of ill-minded people are dangerous to our society. So, at any
circumstances, petitioner does not deserves bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
gravity of serious nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82594 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr./Sunny
U T
Checking your session…