Wakil Ahmad Ansari @ Vakil Ahamad Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47793 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ====================================================== Wakil Ahmad Ansari @ Vakil Ahamad Ansari S/O Late Md. Kudus Ansari @ Mohamad Kudus Ansari R/O Village- Mundla, P.S- Ramnagar, Distt.- West Champaran, presently residing at Village- Sosa Chaugharia, P.S- Ramnagar, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vatsal Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bettiah (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant was working as a caretaker of the land of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has sexually exploited her for nine years by threatening her to leak a video of their relationship. The petitioner also withheld her wages amounting to Rs. 10 lakh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47793 of 2025(4) dt.19-09-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that no physical relation was ever established and no such video was taken by the petitioner in any manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped person. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious and specific. The video was made by the petitioner has been given by the informant to the I.O. of this case which is mentioned in paragraph no. 62 of the case diary. It is further submitted that the informant has also supported the allegation in her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47793 of 2025(4) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T