Patna High Court
Manoj Sada @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Manoj Sada, arrested on 14 August 2024, sought bail in a case (PS 229/2024) alleging forced sexual intercourse with the informant's daughter under Sections 64 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner claimed a clean record, asserted that the FIR was fabricated, and highlighted that no prosecution witnesses had yet been examined. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegations in the FIR and the victim’s corroborating statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The court, after considering the seriousness of the offences and the victim’s statement, refused bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged sexual offences under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita despite the absence of examined prosecution witnesses.
- Whether the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 64
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- sexual offences
- victim statement
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16714 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2024 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Manoj Sada @ Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Subedar Sada Resident of village -
Lorika Musahari Tola, Ward No.- 9, P.S.- Singhwara, District - Darbhanga,
Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X Wife of Mr. Z Resident of village - Lorika Musahari Tola, Ward No.- 9,
P.S.- Singhwara, District - Darbhanga, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard Ms. Smiti Bharti, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
14.08.2024, in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 229/2024,
FIR dated 14.08.2024 registered for the offence under Sections
64,3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of
the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Accordingly to the prosecution case, it is alleged that
the petitioner forcefully made physical relation with the daughter of
the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in this case. She further submits that the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16714 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/2
committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. She next submits
that although charge has been framed against the petitioner on
26.06.2025 but the prosecution witnesses have not been examined as
yet and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 14.08.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits
that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR and victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution in
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C/183 BNSS.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner in the FIR supported by the statement of the victim, I am
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with
Singhwara P.S. Case No. 229/2024 pending in the Special
Judge( POCSO Act), Darbhanga.
7. Prayer is refused.
8. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…