Md. Azhar Vs The State of Bihar

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 04-07-2025

¶14

Heard Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for

¶15

the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 12.01.2025, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, FIR dated 02.06.2024 registered for the offence under Sections 376D, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04/6 of POCSO Act.

¶17

According to the prosecution case, the informant alleged that she along with Md. Ide were working as cleaner at the house of Md. Mojahid and both stayed in the same room and in between this Md. Ide used to make physical relation with her.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15891 of 2025(4) dt.04-07-2025 2/3

¶19

In the meantime at about six months prior, the petitioner made physical relation with her on false pretext of marriage.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. From bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner made physical relation for six month with the victim but as per medical report she was pregnant for eight month so entire allegation was false and fabricated and apart from that DNA report suggest that the biological father of the child is coaccused person, namely, Md. Ide and this petiioner is not the biological father of the child. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 12.01.2025.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it appears from the FIR itself that petitioner and other co-accused person have committed rape upon the victim and apart from that the statement of the victim was recovered under Section 164 Cr.P.C/183 BNSS in which she has categorically stated that the petitioner has also committed rape upon her.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15891 of 2025(4) dt.04-07-2025 3/3

¶24

case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, pending in the Court of Additional District Sessions Judge 6th-cumExclusive Special Judge POCSO, Bhagalpur.

¶25

Prayer is refused.

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶27

Suruchi/-

¶28

U T

Md. Azhar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Azhar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Subodh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Irfan Vs The State of Bihar

Roshan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Bipin Kumar Yadav @ Vipin Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Roushan Kumar Singh @ Roushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar