Patna High Court
Sandeep SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, applied for regular bail in a criminal case registered under IPC Sections 366A, 376, 34 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging that he has a clean antecedent and was not named in the FIR. The victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC implicated the petitioner, but the counsel argued that the allegation stemmed from a kidnapping incident involving another accused, Rajesh, who had earlier been granted bail and subsequently acquitted. The State opposed the bail on the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, one of whom is his father, Shankar Sharma, and warned that bail could be cancelled if the trial is delayed. The bail application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC 366A, 376, 34 and POCSO Act Section 4 despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 366A, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- sexual offences
- kidnapping
- rape
- IPC
- POCSO Act
- CrPC
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71617 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2020 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Sandeep Sharma S/o Shankar Sharma R/o Village- Dumdum, P.S.- Bhabhua,
District- Kaimur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X S/o Y R/o Village- Dumdum P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal
Code and later charge sheet has been submitted under Sections
366A, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4
of the POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and in sum and
substance, the allegation is that the daughter of the informant
was kidnapped by Rajesh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71617 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
wherein she alleged that she was raped by the accused persons
including the petitioner. It is further submitted that Rajesh was
taken in custody on 29.01.2021 and he approached this Court
seeking regular bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20426
of 2022 on the ground that after the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the father of the victim filed
an application before the learned Trial Court stating therein that
the victim has been married and the case was instituted under
misconception. It is submitted that Criminal Miscellaneous No.
20426 of 2022 was rejected by an order dated 06.01.2023 with
liberty to Rajesh to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not
concluded within a period of seven months from the date of the
order i.e. 06.01.2023. It is submitted that Rajesh faced the trial
and was acquitted. It is further submitted that the instant
petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2025 and the charges against
him have been framed by an order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure
P/2 to the supplementary affidavit). It is submitted that if
privilege of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will face the trial to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71617 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Bhabhua P.S. Case No 209 of 2020.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father namely Shankar Sharma.
8. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court
comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release on bail, is
trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event the learned
Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is
allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…