Dismissed¶23

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Feb 2026CR. MISC./48656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Crl. Misc. No.48656 of 2025, decided 17-02-2026 by Soni Shrivastava, J.: bail application of Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir rejected in Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024 (Purnia) under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(2) BNS and Sections 4(2), 8 POCSO Act; victim supported prosecution in statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS; charges framed and one witness examined per APP; petitioner in custody since 26.12.2024; liberty to renew bail prayer if no substantial trial progress within six months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; however, petitioner at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if no substantial progress is made in the trial within six months. ¶23

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir Vs The State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for bail rejected; however, petitioner at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if no substantial progress is made in the trial within six months.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2) and 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the POCSO Act, should be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations and that the case has been supported by the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and rejected his prayer for bail in connection with Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If no substantial progress is made in the trial within a period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Patna High Court (Soni Shrivastava, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.48656 of 2025, decided 17-02-2026. Prayer for bail rejected in connection with Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024 (District Purnia), registered for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2) and 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4(2) and 8 of the POCSO Act. The court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the victim's support to the prosecution in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S.; learned APP stated that charges stood framed and one witness had been examined. Counsel for the petitioner had urged that there was no eyewitness, that medical examination found no spermatozoa or sign of sexual assault though the victim's age was 12 to 14 years, that the case was lodged at the instigation of one Tutun Alam for oblique reasons, and that the petitioner was in custody since 26.12.2024 with clean antecedents. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew the bail prayer if no substantial progress is made in the trial within six months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48656 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2024 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia

¶3

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

¶4

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir Son of Shahzada @ Md. Shahzada R/o villLine bazar Hazaratganj (Chhoti Maszid), P.S- Sahayak Khajanchi, DistrictPurnea

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Shabanam Praveen W/o Jamshed Alam R/o vill - Hazaratganj Chhoti Maszid, ward no. 42, P.S.- Sahayak Khajanchi, Distt.- Purnea

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶15

5 17-02-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 (2), 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶18

Petitioner is said to have committed wrong with the daughter of the informant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the incident and the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and no spermatozoa was found and there was no sign of any sexual assault, however, the age of the victim was found between 12 to 14 years. It has further been submitted that the present case has been lodged at

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48656 of 2025(5) dt.17-02-2026 2/2

¶21

the instigation of one Tutun Alam for certain oblique reasons. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2024 with clean antecedent.

¶22

Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail on the ground that the present case involves a heinous offence with the minor girl and the victim has also supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. It has further been submitted that the charges have already been in this case and one witness has also been examined.

¶23

Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations and also considering that the case has been supported by the victim in her statement under Section 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection Sahayak Khajanchi P.S. Case No. 366 of 2024.

¶24

However, in case no substantial progress is made in the trial within a period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶25

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶26

devendra/- U T

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu @ Sabir Alam @ Md. Sabir 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

Kamleshwari Thakur @ Vikash @ Ranjeet @ Sanesh Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Yadav @ Pappu Pelu @ Pelu Vs The State of Bihar

Bipin Kumar @ Vipin Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amresh Kumar @ Amulkul @ Anukul Vs The State of Bihar

Abhilash Kumar @ Abhilas Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar