Dismissed¶¶21

Mohammad Mujamil v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Sept 2025CR. MISC./45467/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.45467 of 2025 (arising out of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025, District Patna), decided 22-09-2025 by Rudra Prakash Mishra, J: bail application of Mohammad Mujamil under Sections 76 & 96 BNS 2023 and Section 18 POCSO Act (alleged luring of a 12-year-old girl on pretext of marriage) rejected in view of custody period and victim's Section 183 BNSS statement supporting the case; charge sheet filed under Sections 78 & 96 BNS 2023 and Section 18 POCSO Act; Trial Court directed to expedite trial; renewal of bail prayer permitted if trial not concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; bail prayer rejected. Petitioner remains at liberty to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months. ¶¶21

Mohammad Mujamil Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; bail prayer rejected. Petitioner remains at liberty to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025 under Sections 76 & 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, should be granted bail.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of custody of the petitioner and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court is not inclined to grant bail; the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is rejected.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of this order.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected (Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.45467 of 2025, decided 22-09-2025, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J): petitioner Mohammad Mujamil, in custody since 17-04-2025 in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025 registered under Sections 76 & 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, was alleged to have lured the informant's 12-year-old daughter from outside her school on 16.04.2025 on the pretext of marriage with wrongful intent. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 78 & 96 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act; the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 supported the prosecution case. Taking into account the period of custody and the victim's statement, the Court declined bail, directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial without undue delay or unnecessary adjournments, and permitted the petitioner to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45467 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mohammad Mujamil son of Mohammad Jabbar @ Jabbar Ali R/o - Gram Chichoda, P.S - Barsoi, District - Katihar, Bihar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Aman Kumar son of Raj Kumar Prasad Village- Saidpur Po and Ps- khagaul, Dist- Patna

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shalini Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khagaul P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 76 & 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

The informant reported receiving repeated unknown calls for four months. On 16.04.2025, his 12-year-old daughter was lured from outside her school by a man on the pretext of marriage with wrongful intent. The accused was found taking her away when the informant intervened, leading to the present case.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45467 of 2025(4) dt.22-09-2025 2/3

¶16

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 17-04-2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

¶17

It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of his enemies in collusion with police with malafide intention. The petitioner has not been arrested from the alleged place of occurrence, nor has any girl been recovered from his possession. The alleged search and seizure list is fabricated, not prepared in presence of independent witnesses. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged girl, and has been falsely dragged in this case to harass and humiliate him.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, it is submitted that victim has supported the prosecution case and there is enough ingredients of Section 96 BNS, 2023. Police, upon completion of investigation, has submitted charge sheet in this case under Sections 78 & 96 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45467 of 2025(4) dt.22-09-2025 3/3

¶21

of the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected .

¶22

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

¶23

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

Raj Kishore/- U T

Mohammad Mujamil v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mujamil 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

Shyam Sunder Prasad Vs State of Bihar

Karan Kumar @ Karn Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Saroj Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jyoti Raj @ Jyotish Kumar @ Jyotish Mahto Vs The State of Bihar