Patna High Court
Raju Sharma @ Laddu SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the seriousness of the offences and the evidentiary material did not justify release.
Summary
Raju Sharma was arrested on 24‑08‑2025 in connection with a case alleging that he filmed an obscene video of the informant’s minor daughter while she was bathing and threatened the family for money, also assaulting them when they tried to seize his phone. He was charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 77 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic (BNS) Act, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner argued he has a clean record, that the FIR was filed ten days after the alleged incident without explanation, and that the allegations are fabricated. The prosecution, supported by the victim’s statement and forensic evidence of the video on the petitioner’s phone, contended that the victim was a minor at the time. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the existence of incriminating evidence, and the risk to the child, and concluded that bail could not be granted. The petition for bail was therefore refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged production of an obscene video of a minor and extortion.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner’s claim of false implication affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- obscene video
- extortion
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85275 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-520 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Raju Sharma @ Laddu Sharma S/O Somen Sharma R/O- Bhartiy Nagar,
Ward no.- 26-35, P.S-Saharsa, Dist.- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X X R/O- Bhartiy Nagar, Ward no.- 26-35, P.S-Saharsa, Dist.- Saharsa
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Munna Raj, Advocate
Mr. Shitanshu Shekhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Munish Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
24.08.2025 in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 520
of 2025, F.I.R. dated 02.05.2025 for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 77 and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 and Section 08/12 of the POCSO Act.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner has
made an obscene video of the informant's minor daughter while
she was bathing and threatened them to pay Rs. 1 lakh or else he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85275 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
would viral the said video. It is further alleged that when the
family members of the victim tried to snatch his phone then all
the accused persons including this petitioner abused and
assaulted them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that it
appears from the FIR that the date of occurrence is 21.04.2025
but the present FIR has been instituted on 02.05.2025 i.e., after
delay of 10 days without giving any explanation of the said
delay.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
statement of the victim was recorded in which the victim has
fully supported the case of the prosecution and apart from that
the mobile phone of the petitioner was examined by the expert
team and it has been found that the video of the victim was
present in his mobile phone which was recorded in paragraph
no. 42 of the case diary and the date of birth of the victim is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85275 of 2025(3) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
01.01.2008 which suggest that at the time of occurrence she was
minor.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 520 of 2025 pending in the
court of learned Additional District Judge-VI-cum-Special
Judge, POCSO, Saharsa.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…