Patna High Court
Md. Saddam Hussain @ Md. SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saddam Hussain, was charged under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, stemming from an alleged three‑year relationship with the informant who later accused him of sexual harassment after he refused to marry her. The petitioner claimed a clean criminal record and asserted that the FIR was fabricated, noting that the victim’s medical report showed no recent evidence of harassment. The informant and the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations. The court, considering the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of substantive evidence from the informant, granted bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and stipulated cancellation of bail for non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the CrPC given the allegations of sexual harassment and other offences under the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of evidence from the informant justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 64(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- sexual harassment
- false complaint
- criminal antecedent
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86630 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Md. Saddam Hussain @ Md. Saddam S/O Md. Quamrul Hoda Resident of
Village- Patwa Goharrah, P.S.- Gawalpokhar, District- Uttar Dinajpur (West
Bengal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. 'X' informant/Victim D/O Md. Jahangir Alam R/O Village- Baluchuka, P.S
and Distt.- Kishanganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
10.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1),
126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, for about three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86630 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
years the petitioner established physical relation with the
informant but later on refused to marry with her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further
submits that it appears from the F.I.R that the informant was
in relationship with the the petitioner and she has not
complained about him anywhere during that period but when
the petitioner has performed marriage, then she has falsely
implicated the petitioner in the present occurrence only to
harass the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, the medical
report of the victim suggest that the victim is major and no
recent trace of sexual harassment against her was found.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and the informant has
not produce any evidence which suggest that she has been
sexually harassed by the petitioner, let the petitioner, above
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86630 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of the order, 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 S.D.J.M, Kishanganj in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and with other 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86630 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…