Dismissed¶24

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram v. The State of Bihar

Bail – refusal – Offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act

Patna HC15 Dec 2025CR. MISC./42382/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.42382 of 2024, decided 15-12-2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra: bail prayer of Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram (aged 70, in custody since 06.03.2024) rejected in Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act (alleged rape on minor); Trial Court told to expedite trial, with liberty to renew bail if trial not concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite the Trial; liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production. ¶24

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42382 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram Son Of Late Moti Ram Resident Of VillageBaraki Nainijor, Ps- Nainijor (OP) , Dist- Buxar

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Chhoti Devi R/O vill- Braki Nainijor, PS- Nainijor(O.P.), Dist- Buxar

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate Mr. Krishna Gond, Advocate

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 15-12-2025

¶15

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel

¶16

for the petitioner, Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, learned APP for the State, Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

¶17

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶18

The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner has committed rape upon minor daughter of the informant when she went to attend nature’s call.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42382 of 2024(5) dt.15-12-2025 2/3

¶21

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 the petitioner is 70 years old man and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. contradicts with each other as the medical report of the victim does not corroborate with the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial is in progress. The petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

¶22

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 there is specific allegation of committing rape upon the victim by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42382 of 2024(5) dt.15-12-2025 3/3

¶26

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.

¶27

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶28

Rajorshi/-

¶29

U T

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhi Ram @ Sidhnath Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through Sri Dipak Kumar Singh Additional Chief Secretary

Amod Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Tanveer Shekh Vs The State of Bihar

Mahendra Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Nirmala Devi @ Nira Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ashish Pandey Vs The State of Bihar