Patna High Court
Munna Ansari @ Munna AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the alleged rape and the commencement of trial preclude granting bail at this stage.
Summary
Munna Ansari petitioned for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 64(1), 65(1), 70(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the alleged gang‑rape of a minor. The prosecution contended that the victim, a 15‑year‑old girl, was lured to a banana field where she was raped by four persons, including the petitioner, and that the medical report showed a ruptured hymen. The defence argued that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. identified only three persons and that the medical examination found no recent evidence of sexual assault, also questioning the call records. The court, relying on the seriousness of the offence and a precedent from the Apex Court, held that bail could not be entertained at this stage of the trial. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the trial was directed to be completed within three months, with the petitioner allowed to renew the bail plea if the trial exceeds the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a serious offence of rape of a minor under the POCSO Act pending trial.
- Whether the medical evidence and victim’s statements are sufficient to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the provisions of Section 35 of the POCSO Act regarding speedy trial affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5), 64(1), 65(1), 70(2)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 35, 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO Act
- minor victim
- medical evidence
- serious offence
- speedy trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84653 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Munna Ansari @ Munna Alam S/O Jagir Ansari @ Jahid Ansari Resident of
Village- Tirlokpur Khurd, P.S- Padrauna, District- Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/O Y R/O Village- Devipur Jogitola, P.S- Dhanaha, Distt.- West
Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Preeti Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counel
for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Dhanaha P.S. Case No.166 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 65(1), 70(2) and 3(5)
of B.N.S. and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that while the
minor daughter of the informant was cooking at her house, she
received a call and went. The informant went to the house of his
neighbour Nawami Kushwaha for searching the minor daughter.
They started scuffling with him. After that, he called on mobile no.
9793863965 and his daughter answered that the petitioner along
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84653 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
with others has enticed and called her from the house and she is at
Ghodha. When the informant reached there, he found that his
daughter was bleeding. On being asked, she disclosed that Munna
called her in banana field and four persons have committed rape
with her due to which she is bleeding.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been
submitted that during course of investigation, the victim has given
her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. wherein she has
stated that one Chandani Kushwaha has called her and she has
gone with her. Chandani left her and four persons committed rape
with her. She identifies only three persons. They are Munna,
Angesh and Pintu. It has further been submitted that the doctors
conducting medical examination have not found any sign of rape.
It has also been submitted that from perusal of para ‘91’ of the
case diary it will also transpire that from the mobile of the
informant no call was made on the mobile of Chandani @ Guddi,
as such, the genesis of occurrence itself becomes doubtful.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.05.2025.
5. Countering this, learned APP appearing for the state
and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of
regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84653 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
it is a case of gang rape and from perusal of the medical
examination report it will transpire that the occurrence is of
25.05.2025 and the medical examination of the victim was
conducted on 28.05.2025. Though, the doctors have opined that
according to above physical and pathological examination there is
no recent evidence of sexual assault but the doctors have found
that hymen ruptured. It has also been submitted that the victim was
aged about 15 years. She was overpowered by four persons and
rape was committed with her, she was having no opportunity to
resist even.
6. Report has also been called for from the learned trial
Court. From the report of learned trial Court, it is clear that till
today altogether five witnesses have been examined. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that even the
victim has been examined in the trial Court.
7. Learned APP for the State has also relied on a
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of
2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which
is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the
bail application of the accused.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84653 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer
for bail stands rejected.
9. However, the learned trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of three
months as the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.05.2025
and Section 35 of the POCSO Act provides that trial of such
offence should be concluded within a period of one year.
10. Petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail
if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…