Patna High Court
Md. Sameer @ Md. SamirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Sameer, was charged with rape and related offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, alleged to have abducted and raped a minor girl. The petitioner pleaded innocence, arguing lack of eye‑witnesses, an alleged non‑applicability of the POCSO Act based on the victim's date of birth, and absence of incriminating medical evidence, while also noting his clean record and custody since July 2025. The State countered with the victim’s recorded statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S. and emphasized the seriousness of the offences. The trial court was reported to be at its final stage, with five of seven charge‑sheet witnesses already examined. Considering the gravity of the charges, the stage of the trial, and the evidence on record, the High Court rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a POCSO case involving alleged rape and multiple serious offences.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witnesses, medical evidence, and alleged age of the victim negates the necessity for bail.
- Whether the stage of the trial (final phase with majority of witnesses examined) precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352, 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- rape
- minor
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- trial stage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88790 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2024 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Md. Sameer @ Md. Samir Son of Md. Salim @ Md. Saleem R/O Mirdhabasa,
Parasbana, P.S. - Ishipur Barahat, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Wife of Y R/o Village - Kishanichak, P.O. - Ammapali, P.S. - Ishipur
Barahat, Dist. - Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ankit Raj, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Madhu Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 21-04-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 150 of
2024 (arising out of Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 354 of 2024)
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 126(2),
115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the
POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, when the minor
daughter of the informant was going to college via the railway
station, the petitioner caught hold of her from behind, dragged
her into a garden, and, after gagging her mouth, committed rape
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88790 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
upon her.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case. it has further been submitted that there is
no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence of rape. When the
victim allegedly raised an alarm, people quickly gathered at the
place of occurrence, indicating that individuals were present in
the vicinity of the occurrence. It has also been submitted that the
POCSO Act would not be applicable, as is evident from the date
of birth mentioned in the admit card of the victim. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner is a young boy whose career
is at stake, the charge sheet has been submitted and there is no
allegation of tampering with the evidence. Moreover, the
medical report contains no positive evidence of rape. Lastly, it
has been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedent and is in custody since 15.07.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of
the petitioner and have submitted that the victim has
categorically stated in her statement recorded under Section 183
of the BNSS that the petitioner has done bad with her.
6. Having perused the record and considered the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88790 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
submission of the parties, the petitioner is alleged to have
committed rape upon the victim. Moreover, the status report of
the trial court, which was earlier called for by order dated
19.03.2026, indicates that the trial is at its fag end wherein five
out of seven charge sheet witnesses have been examined.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the
same is hereby rejected.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…