Patna High Court
SarfrazversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Sarfraz, was arrested in connection with a case registered under several sections of the B.N.S., alleging that he lured a woman to Bangalore, sold her for money, and promised marriage which he later reneged. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the woman was already married, and that there was no evidence of any sexual assault or physical relationship, noting a five‑month delay in filing the FIR and his clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, while the petitioner’s counsel highlighted the lack of substantive allegations and the nature of the charge sheet. The court, considering the petitioner’s clean record, the nature of the allegations, the delay in the FIR, and the charge sheet, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions, including a close relative as a surety and attendance in court. The bail was granted subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate decision on the bail application for the petitioner accused under multiple sections of the B.N.S.?
- Does the delay in filing the FIR and lack of specific allegations of sexual assault affect the grant of bail?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115, 126, 3, 351, 352, 480, 69
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- sexual assault allegation
- clean antecedent
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S.
- Section 480(3)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90227 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
Sarfraz Son of Nasimuddin Resident of village- Jathwara Pathraha, Ward No.
14 Police Station- Ghurna, Dist- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Ravish, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, registered for
the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 69, 352, 351(2),
351(3), 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution case, coaccused Balajim
gave a call to the informant offering her loan and told her that
she would require to go to Bangalore for getting the loan and
thereafter the informant went to Bangalore with coaccused and
this petitioner. Further allegation is that the coaccused sold the
informant to this petitioner for Rs.25000/-. The petitioner
assured the informant that he would marry her but later on
refused and the informant returned to her home. Panchayati was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90227 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
held but ultimately the petitioner did not marry the informant
and married some other girl.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
in this case and he is innocent. Informant is a major girl and she
was already married to one Shamsuddin. During investigation
one of the witnesses has stated that the informant was in love
with coaccused Balajim and was having an affair and she
voluntarily went to Bangalore. When she had a quarrel with the
coaccused, she came to this petitioner seeking help and the
petitioner advised her to return home and also provided her
money for travel. When the husband of the informant refused to
take her back, she again approached this petitioner. There is no
allegation of any sexual assault or establishing physical
relationship with the informant by the petitioner giving her
allurement of marriage. The whole prosecution story appears to
be false that the informant went to Bangalore as the pretext is
not believable. There is unexplained delay of more than five
months in lodging the FIR. Even in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of the BNSS there is no allegation of any
sexual overt act against this petitioner. The petitioner is in
custody since 27.09.2025 and he is a man of clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90227 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
Charge sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and
submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
nature of allegation and material against the petitioner and also
considering his clean antecedent, period of custody of the
petitioner and submission of charge sheet against him, the
petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Araria/concerned court, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No. 10 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under
Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on
each and every date fixed by the court
below, if so required by the learned trial
court.
(iii) In case of absence on three
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90227 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
consecutive dates or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…