Patna High Court
Kasim AnsasriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted in view of the serious nature of the rape allegation involving a minor.
Summary
The petitioner, Kasim Ansari, aged about 60, applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he raped an eight‑year‑old girl. He has been in custody since 1 May 2025. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his age made him incapable of committing the offence. The opposing party contended that two witnesses have already been examined and the victim’s statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 supports the prosecution. The court considered the seriousness of the allegation involving a minor and was not persuaded by the petitioner's arguments. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the petitioner may re‑apply if the prosecution does not cooperate in the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused of rape of a minor under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and section 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the nature of the allegation and the existing evidence preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 65(2)
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 183
- POCSO Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- regular bail
- rape
- minor
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88366 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Kasim Ansasri S/o- Late Ashim Ansari R/v- Pirpra Parsain, Tola Ram Nagar
Ps- Sonbarsa Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mariyam Khatun W/o- Israil Ali R/v- Pirpra Parsain, Tola Ram Nagar Ps-
Sonbarsa Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP
For the Opp. Party NO.2 : Mr. Madusudan Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. This application for grant of regular bail
arises out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No.148 of 2025 registered for
the offence punishable under sections 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
and under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The petitioner is said to have committed rape
with a minor girl, who is aged about eight years.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
01.05.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent as he is aged about 60 years old
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88366 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/2
and is incapable of committing rape.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
bail and has submitted that in the trial two witnesses have
already been examined. He has also submitted that the victim
has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded
under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. Considering nature of allegation levelled
against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. If the
prosecution does not cooperate in the trial, the petitioner may
renew his prayer for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…