Patna High Court
Sohel AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions, as the medical report undermines the prosecution’s case and the petitioner has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sohel Ali, was arrested in May 2025 for alleged rape under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, based on an FIR in which the informant claimed the petitioner forced sexual intercourse by threatening her with a gun. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, the allegations are fabricated, and the medical report taken the next day showed no evidence of sexual intercourse or pregnancy. The prosecution relied on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, while the defence highlighted the contradictory medical opinion. The court examined the credibility of the medical report, the victim’s minor status, and the petitioner’s clean record, and concluded that the lack of medical corroboration weakens the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of rape under IPC and POCSO when the medical report does not support the prosecution’s allegation.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC is sufficient to deny bail in the absence of medical evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- medical evidence
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82837 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2024 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Sohel Ali S/O Mirhasan Ali Resident of Dargahi Tola, P.S- Baniyapur, Distt.-
Saran, Bihar- 841403. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX D/O Y R/O Village- Dargahi Tola, Karah, P.S- Baniyapur, Distt.-
Saran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary,
learned counsel for the Informant.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
14.05.2025 in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 292 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 28.06.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged
that the petitioner forcibly made physical relation with her by
keeping gun in her mouth and threatened to shoot her if she
shouted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82837 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated
in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has
not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He next
submits that although the victim has supported the case of the
prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C/183 BNSS but her medical report which was conducted on
next date of the alleged occurrence does not support the case of the
prosecution. The opinion of the doctor is quoted hereinbelow:-
“On the basis of above facts we can say that Rima
Kumari is not pregnant and there is no evidence of
sexual intercourse at the time of examination.”
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that victim has
supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that on the
alleged date of occurrence the victim was minor.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioner has clean antecedent and the medical report of the
informant does not support the allegation as alleged in the FIR, let
the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82837 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
Additional Session Judge, (POCSO) Saran, Chhapara in
connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 292 of 2024, subject to
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.