Aun MohammadversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83565 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- SHIVSAGAR District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Aun Mohammad S/O Saiyed Karar Hussain @ Sayed Karar Hussain R/O
                 Village- Pakhnari, P.S- Shivsagar, District- Rohtas.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Ashwani Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   28-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190,

                   126(2), 329(24), 74, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(c), and 64 of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. The case of the prosecution is that when the father

                   of the victim was ill, the petitioner started visiting the house of

                   the informant, and in this manner, a relationship developed

                   between the petitioner and the informant. The petitioner

                   promised to marry the informant and, on this promise,

                   established a physical relationship with her. It is further alleged

                   that on 27.07.2025, when the family members of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83565 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/4




          had gone out at about 9:00 P.M., the petitioner forcibly

          established a physical relationship with her and assaulted her.

          When the informant raised an alarm, her father arrived at home

          and was also assaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner also

          threatened the informant that he would marry her.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

          present case. It is further submitted that both the informant and

          the petitioner are majors and, from the prosecution story itself, it

          is clear that prior to the alleged occurrence, they had a physical

          relationship. It is also submitted that from perusal of the medical

          examination report placed at page 24 of the brief, it would

          transpire that the doctor found nothing conclusive. Moreover,

          the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.08.2025 and has no

          criminal antecedents.

                       5. During the course of investigation, the statement of

          the victim was recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the

          BNSS wherein she has supported the case of the prosecution.

          From perusal of the medical examination report, it is evident

          that an abrasion measuring ¼” × 1⁄6” over the left shoulder and

          a bruise measuring 6” × ½” over the anterolateral aspect of the

          left thigh, blackish in colour, were found. An old tear of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83565 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
                                            3/4




          hymen was also noted.

                       6. The opinion of the doctor is peculiar, as the doctor

          opined that on the basis of clinical and pathological

          examination, it is very difficult to say whether recent sexual

          intercourse is to be done or not. However, from the medical

          examination report, it is clear that there is evidence of resistance

          on the part of the victim, as reflected from the injuries found on

          her person.

                       7. From the first part of the FIR, it is apparent that the

          informant had earlier physical relations with the petitioner,

          however, as far as the occurrence dated 27.07.2025 is

          concerned, the allegation is that the act was committed forcibly.

          It is settled law that merely because a man had physical

          relations with a woman earlier, it does not give him a perpetual

          right to have sexual intercourse with her. Consent is required for

          every act. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel

          for the petitioner that the parties were in a relationship does not

          hold merit.

                       8. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for regular bail.

                       9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, the arguments advanced by the parties, and the materials
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83565 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                      available on record, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of

                      bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for

                      bail is rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer

                      for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded by then.

                      The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

                                   10. Before parting, it is observed that the opinion

                      rendered by the doctor is unsatisfactory. Such an opinion should

                      not be given in future. The Civil Surgeon concerned is directed

                      to examine the opinion rendered by the doctor and take

                      appropriate action in accordance with law.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T