Patna High Court
Saheb RazaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court confirmed the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Saheb Raza, was arrested under IPC sections 366(A) and 34 and POCSO Act sections 8 and 12 for alleged sexual offences against a girl who claimed to be 18 years old. The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual, the victim had voluntarily married him, was pregnant, and had fled an abusive home, and that the FIR was lodged 23 days after the incident without explanation. The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC affirmed her age as 18 and her desire to stay with the petitioner, who had no prior criminal record and was already on provisional bail since 03‑12‑2025. The State opposed bail, contending that the victim’s age certificate indicated she was a minor, making the offences non‑bailable. Considering the victim’s voluntary statement, the petitioner’s clean record, and the circumstances, the court confirmed the provisional bail previously granted.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under IPC 366(A)/34 and POCSO Act sections 8/12 when the alleged victim is an adult who consents to the relationship.
- Whether the delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the victim’s age certificate indicating minority overrides her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- bail
- IPC 366A
- POCSO Act
- minor
- consent
- delay in FIR
- provisional bail
- age verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83459 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2024 Thana- BARAHAT District- Banka
======================================================
Saheb Raza S/O Md. Ashab Alam Resident of village- Kharahara, PS-
Barahat, District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/O Y Resident of village- Haripur, PS- Barahat, District- Banka
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md.Najmul Hodda
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 366(A)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the present case arises out of love relationship between the
petitioner and the victim and as a matter of fact, the victim was
a major and she had voluntarily gone along with the petitioner
and also solemnized marriage with him. It is further submitted
that the First Information Report has been lodged after 23 days
of the occurrence and no explanation has been tendered for such
delay in lodging of the FIR. The victim after recovery has also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83459 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
been examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has
disclosed her age as 18 years and the court has also assessed her
age as 18 years and she has subsequently stated that she was
being ill treated and assaulted at her house by her parents and
relatives and it was on account of such fact that she fled away
from the house and went to Bhagalpur where she called the
petitioner and was staying with him at Patna and then went to
Delhi. She has also admitted that she was two months pregnant
at the time of recording of the statement under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. and also stated that she wanted to go to her husband
i.e. the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the victim is
residing in her matrimonial household i.e. the house of the
petitioner and has also given birth to a child. The petitioner is
also a young boy of 25 years of age, has no criminal antecedent
and he is in custody since 17.10.2025 but was granted
provisional bail vide order dated 03.12.2025 till the next date of
hearing.
4. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have opposed the application for bail. Learned
counsel for the informant has submitted that as a matter of fact,
according to her age certificate, the victim is a minor and as
such, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83459 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
5. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the statement of the victim
made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. coupled with the fact that
the petitioner is a young boy with no criminal antecedent, the
provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated
03.12.2025 stands confirmed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…