The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a school teacher facing serious allegations under the POCSO Act and the Bihar New Security Statute, 2023, after finding that the prosecution’s case was undermined by a prior FIR lodged by the accused and a supervisory police report questioning its veracity. This order reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations appear retaliatory and lack credible foundation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Prasad, a school teacher, is accused in Anti P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025, registered on 09.03.2025, under Section 126(2), 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bihar New Security Statute (BNSS), 2023, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The allegations stem from a complaint by the father of a female student, who claims the petitioner used abusive language in class, inappropriately touched the child, and made a viral WhatsApp video to provoke communal tensions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a long-serving teacher at Jamalpur Madhya Vidyalaya
- On 08.03.2025, at approximately 15:40 hours, the petitioner was allegedly attacked by 8 - 9 persons, including the informant, who tore his shirt, abused him, and threatened to kill him
- On the same day, 08.03.2025, the petitioner lodged his own FIR as Anti P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025 against the informant and others for assault and criminal intimidation
- The prosecution’s FIR (Case No. 35 of 2025) was registered the next day, on 09.03.2025
- The investigation supervisor’s note, paragraph 62, concluded that the allegations against the petitioner were not found to be true
- The victim’s allegations were made only after the petitioner’s FIR was registered
Procedural History
- 08.03.2025: Petitioner files FIR (Anti P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025) against the informant and others
- 09.03.2025: Opposite party files FIR (Anti P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025) against the petitioner
- 04.05.2026: Petitioner files Criminal Miscellaneous No. 74272 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail
- 04.05.2026: Court hears arguments; no appearance by Opposite Party No. 2 despite notice
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Counsel argued that the FIR against the petitioner is a retaliatory counterblast to his own lawful complaint. He emphasized his age, status as a teacher, and the police supervisor’s adverse finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated. He contended that the timing and nature of the complaint suggest malice.
For the Respondent/State: The State did not oppose the bail application. Counsel for the State acknowledged the procedural irregularities and the supervisory note but did not present any evidence to contradict the petitioner’s version.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Anti P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025, with conditions including a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of like amount.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 when the allegations appear retaliatory, a prior FIR exists, and the investigating authority’s supervision note casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that anticipatory bail is a preventive remedy meant to shield individuals from arbitrary arrest where the allegations are dubious or retaliatory. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that courts must scrutinize the prima facie truth of allegations before permitting arrest, especially in sensitive cases like POCSO. He emphasized that the police supervision note, a formal part of the investigation record, explicitly found the allegations untrue. The timing of the FIR - filed one day after the petitioner’s own complaint - was presented as conclusive evidence of mala fide intent.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not contest the application. No counter-arguments were presented, and the public prosecutor did not oppose the grant of anticipatory bail, effectively conceding the weakness of the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the sequence of events and the procedural posture with particular attention to the timing of the two FIRs and the supervisory report. It noted that the petitioner’s FIR was registered on 08.03.2025, while the prosecution’s FIR followed only the next day. The Court observed that such a rapid counter-filing, especially in the context of a serious allegation involving a child, raises a strong inference of retaliation.
"The F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner is prior in time and the finding arrived at by the police authority in his supervision note... the present case lodged against the petitioner has not been found true."
The Court held that the police supervision note, though not a final finding, is a significant internal assessment by a superior officer and cannot be ignored. It carries evidentiary weight in assessing the credibility of the complaint. The Court further noted that the absence of any appearance by the second opposite party - presumably the alleged victim’s family - further weakened the prosecution’s position.
The Court applied the triple test for anticipatory bail: (1) reasonable apprehension of arrest, (2) prima facie absence of guilt, and (3) likelihood of the accused cooperating with investigation. All three were satisfied. The Court emphasized that while POCSO cases demand sensitivity, they do not exempt the accused from the presumption of innocence or the right to be protected from malicious prosecution.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Prasad in the event of arrest in Anti P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025. He is directed to surrender before the Exclusive Special Judge POCSO cum District & Additional Sessions Judge VII, Gaya, within four weeks from today. He shall furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each. The conditions under Section 438(2) of the BNSS, 2023 shall apply, including cooperation with investigation and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior FIRs Can Undermine Prosecution Credibility
- Practitioners must highlight the chronological sequence of FIRs in cases involving counter-allegations
- A prior FIR by the accused, especially when followed by a retaliatory complaint, creates a strong basis for anticipatory bail
- Courts are increasingly willing to treat timing as evidence of mala fide intent
Supervisory Notes Carry Weight in Bail Decisions
- Internal police supervision reports, even if not formal chargesheets, are admissible as part of the investigation record
- A finding that allegations are "not found true" by a supervisory officer must be addressed by the prosecution
- Failure to rebut such findings may lead to bail being granted even in serious cases
POCSO Cases Are Not Beyond Bail Scrutiny
- The gravity of POCSO allegations does not automatically negate the right to anticipatory bail
- Courts must still apply the prima facie test and assess whether the complaint is credible or retaliatory
- The judgment reinforces that procedural fairness and presumption of innocence apply even in sensitive cases
