Sanower @ Sonower @ Md. Sanowar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71212 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Katihar ====================================================== Sanower @ Sonower @ Md. Sanowar S/O Alauddian @ Alimuddian @ Alimuddian Resident of Village- Rahmanpur, Police Station- Barsoi (Sudhani O.P.), District- Katihar, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) (3), (5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, the victim alleges that her cousin Md. Sanower @ Sonower @ Md. Sanowar (the petitioner) committed rape upon her on 06.07.2024 by threatening her, resulting in pregnancy and birth of a male child on 03.04.2025. Later, on refusal of panchayati, co-accused persons allegedly assaulted the victim and her parents and the case was lodged.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71212 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is a cousin of the victim. The victim is a married woman and had a consensual relationship with the petitioner. The FIR itself shows that the petitioner and the victim both are major. The victim herself admits in her Fardbeyan that when she became pregnant, she disclosed the fact to her family members. These facts themselves show that the relationship was consensual.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above-named, is directed to furnish bail bond and on doing so, the court below shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Katihar in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025, subject to the following conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T