Patna High Court
Nabi alam @ Navi AalamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Nabi Alam, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023, alleging that he forcefully had sexual intercourse with the informant in a sugarcane field. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, no injuries were found on either party, and the medical report was inconclusive, asserting his innocence and lack of prior criminal record. The State and the informant opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the offence and Supreme Court pronouncements that courts should be reluctant to grant bail in serious crimes such as rape. The petitioner’s counsel cited a Supreme Court decision in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, arguing that a consensual relationship does not constitute rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. After hearing both sides, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to deny bail and ordered the petitioner to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged act under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023, constitutes a non‑consensual sexual offence justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the medical examination report and lack of injuries negate the prosecution’s case.
- Whether precedents on bail in serious offences, including rape, are applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 69
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(2)(n)
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- consensual relationship
- Section 69 B.N.S.
- medical evidence
- rape jurisprudence
- IPC 376
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89883 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-836 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Nabi alam @ Navi Aalam S/O Md. Nasrullah Ansari @Nasrullah Ansari@
Mohd Nasrullah Ansari R/O Vill.- Malad, P.S- Shikarpur, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X D/O Y R/O Vill.-Bishunpurwa Ward No.-16, P.S- Shikarpur, District-
West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 836 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner and the informant were in a relationship for the last
two months. It is alleged that on the false promise of marriage,
the petitioner has established physical relationship with the
informant. It is further alleged that on 26.08.2025 at 12 noon,
the petitioner took the informant to a sugarcane field and
forcefully established physical relationship. When this fact was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89883 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
known to the family members and neighbors, the petitioner was
apprehended and was asked to marry to which he denied.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. He also submits that the last part of an FIR speaks a lot.
The last part of the FIR goes to show that the relationship was
consensual but as the family members and neighbors have come
to know, the petitioner was asked to marry, to which he denied.
He further submits that from perusal of the medical examination
report which was conducted on the same day, it will also
transpire that no mark of injury was found on any parts of the
body and even after going to the sugarcane field, no mark of
scratch could be found on the body of the informant. In medical
examination report, the doctor conducting medical examination
has opined that pathology report shows spermatozoa not seen
but physical examination- hymen ruptured. So possibility of
recent sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. He further submits
that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in
judicial custody since 27.08.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89883 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ansaar
Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held which is given hereunder:-
“Offence of committing repeated rape on same
woman- The complainant has willingly been staying
with the appellant and had the relationship – Now if
the relationship is not working out, the same cannot
be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence
under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.”
6. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for
the State. Learned counsel for the informant stated that this is
case under Section 69 of the BNS, which is newly added
Section. He further submits that from perusal of the medical
examination report, it will transpire that the offence was
committed on the late.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has relied on a
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State
of Rajasthan wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para-14
which reads as under:-
“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.”
8. Countering this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that it is not a case of rape rather it is a
case of consensual relationship.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89883 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
A.C.J.M.-VI, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with
Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 836 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…