Md. Mahmood Ansari @ Mahmood Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65225 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Md. Mahmood Ansari @ Mahmood Ansari Son of Jafruddin Ansari Resident of Mohalla - Madarganj, P.S.- Akorhigola, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Akorhigola Police Station Case No. 250 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 352/351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the niece of the informant, aged about 14 years, visited the house of the informant on the occasion of marriage in the family, where the petitioner, who is the neighbour of the informant, took her photograph and after editing it, made it viral through the fake ID.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65225 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act is not made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further submits that though the supervising authority has directed the Investigating Officer of this case to get the U.R.L. so that the person, who has made viral the obscene photographs of the niece of the informant can be traced, the Investigating Officer could not get the U.R.L. of the fake ID till date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, including the impugned order.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report and there is direct allegation against him of making viral the obscene photographs of a minor child with her own maternal uncle, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √