Patna High Court
Md. ShahrukhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The application for regular bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Shahrukh, was charged in a POCSO case and several sections of the B.N.S. for allegedly abducting a child, based on a CCTV claim that identified him as the perpetrator. He applied for regular bail, arguing innocence, a 14‑day delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of any procured CCTV footage, while noting he was already in judicial custody. The State and the complainant’s wife opposed bail, emphasizing that the trial was at its fag end and that the investigating officer still needed to be examined. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the offences, the stage of the trial, and the prosecution’s position, refused the bail application. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings as per its earlier report.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted at the fag end of trial for offences under the B.N.S. and POCSO Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged non‑production of CCTV footage justify bail.
- Whether the pending examination of the investigating officer precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 123, 137(2), 331(3), 331(4), 75, 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 12, 8
Subjects
- regular bail
- POCSO
- B.N.S.
- child abduction
- trial stage
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89928 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2024 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Shahrukh Son of Md. Ifran @ Irfan @ Bhola @ Bhola Khan Resident of
Village - Malaria Office, Baksariya Tola, P.S. - Sultanganj, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX Wife of YYY Resident of Village - Malaria Office, Baksariya Tola,
P.S. - Sultanganj, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Fahar Imran, Advocate
Mr. Syed Imran Gheni, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Arya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No.
488 of 2024 dated 14.11.2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 137(2), 331(3), 331(4), 75, 76, 123 of
B.N.S. and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the child of the
informant went missing on 01.11.2024 at 04:10 AM, search was
made and at 05:45 AM she was recovered, the informant came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89928 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
to know after viewing the CCTV footage that one person lifted
her daughter and was taking away. When the video was shown
to the nearby people, they identified the person who was taking
the victim to be petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that there is a delay of 14 days in
lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that there is no CCTV footage was procured and only it
is stated that the Investigating Officer saw the CCTV footage. It
is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 21.11.2024 and he is accused in one more case in which he
is on bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the Opposite Party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail, while learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has
stated that the trial has reached its fag and only the Investigating
Officer of the case is required to be examined. Moreover, the
report of the trial which was called for by order dated
15.01.2026 would go to show that the trial court would take
endeavour to conclude the trial within six months by its report
dated 30.01.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89928 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and considering the fag end of trial, this court is not
inclined to allow the prayer for bail to the petitioner and
accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected in connection with
Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 488 of 2024, pending in the Court of
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-
Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act), Patna.
7. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial as
mentioned in its report.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…