Sandeep Ram @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeet Ram Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Choudhary, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 11-08-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

¶15

Samastipur Mahila P.S. Case No. 7 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 376, 341, 342 and 363 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in

¶17

custody since 09.09.2024.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is to kidnap the minor daughter of informant for the purpose of illicit intercourse or seduce/force her to marry another person.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9323 of 2025(4) dt.11-08-2025 2/3

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶21

petitioner submitted that due to property dispute present false implication was raised. It is also submitted that as petitioner is in custody for about a year, matter is still pending at the stage of evidence. It is also submitted that the statement of victim as recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS appears tutored under the influence of her mother and moreover, her statement also appears contradictory qua presence of her young sister during the occurrence. While concluding the argument it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

¶22

Learned APP appearing on behalf of State, while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that victim while recording her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS categorically supported the fact that this petitioner kidnapped her and committed penetrative sexual assault/rape upon her. It is pointed out that progress of trial is satisfactory as out of five charge-sheeted witnesses four have already been examined and there is all likelihood that trial may conclude within preferred time limit of one year as available under

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9323 of 2025(4) dt.11-08-2025 3/3

¶24

Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid factual submissions

¶26

and by taking note of statement of victim who appears primafacie minor on the date of occurrence supported allegation of kidnapping and of penetrative sexual assault/rape against petitioner, where progress of trial appears satisfactory, accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith for the present.

¶27

As petitioner remains in custody since

¶28

09.09.2024, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within preferred time period of one year from the date of cognizance as per the mandate available under Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act.

¶29

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶30

S.Tripathi/-

Sandeep Ram @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeet Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Ram @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sanjeet Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Raut @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Akshay Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Barun Kumar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Kiran Devi @ Gudia Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar