Md. Dilsad @ Md. Dilshad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73336 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2025 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Dilsad @ Md. Dilshad S/O Hakimuddin @ Hakimudeen Resident of Village- Madhubani, Ward No. 07, Amhara, Police Station- Forbesganj, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case no.272 of 2025 registered under section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 67 of the Information & Technology Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner committed rape on her, made a video of the same, and made it viral.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of his demanding back the amount of loan that he had given to the informant. There is an unexplained delay of 7 days in lodging of the F.I.R. No video has transpired in course of investigation. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73336 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 medical report does not support the prosecution case and there is no eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that from the contents of the FIR itself it would transpire that the reason for false implication was that the informant has strained relations with her uncle in-law with whom the petitioner was on visiting terms. The petitioner is in custody since 5.6.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State, who submits that the informant has supported the prosecution case in her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR together with the informant having supported the allegations in her statement under section 183 of the B.N.S.S, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T