Faiyaj Aalam @ Fayaj Aalam Vs The State of Bihar

The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection with POCSO Case No.90 of 2024 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No.642 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 97 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘B.N.S.’), subsequently, Section 74 of the BNS was added as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶20

The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and is in custody since 30.10.2024.

¶21

Allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the

¶22

minor daughter of informant aged about 16 years for the

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20060 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/3

¶24

purpose of illicit intercourse or seduced/forced her to enter into marriage with another person.

¶25

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the victim after recovery while recording her statement under Section 180 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) categorically denied the occurrence as kidnapping. She also stated that no sexual assault was committed upon her. It is further submitted that the victim has refused to join medical examination. While concluding argument, it is submitted that during trial the victim categorically denied the occurrence while examining as PW-2 and therefore, keeping the petitioner in judicial custody for any further period would not serve any purpose of justice. In this context, it is further submitted that still this matter is for examination of prosecution witnesses and only two prosecution witnesses i.e. victim and informant were examined and, therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude within prescribed time period of one year form the date of cognizance in view of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.

¶26

Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20060 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 3/3

¶28

submitted that the allegation qua kidnapping is specific against this petitioner.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and

¶30

by taking note of fact as petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2024, where progress of trial prima facie suggest that the trial is not likely to conclude within time period of one year in terms of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, accordingly, the petitioner, who is man of clean antecedent, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-cumA.D.J.-VI, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with POCSO Case No.90 of 2024 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No.642 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.

¶31

Sanjeet/- U T

¶32

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Faiyaj Aalam @ Fayaj Aalam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiyaj Aalam @ Fayaj Aalam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Giri @ Putul Giri Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Madan Ram Vs The State of Bihar