Patna High Court – Orders
Mankeshwar Ram @ Bahira vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52146 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-478 Year-2023 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Mankeshwar Ram @ Bahira, Son of Jhagru Ram @ Mahabir Ram
2. Shyambabu Ram, Son of Rajesh Ram
3. Prakash Ram, Son of Janardan Ram
All are Resident of village-Rajpur Mathiya, P.S.-Sikarpur, Distt.-West
Champaran
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Alka Kumari D/o- Dhamendra Yadav R/o Village + P.S.- Sikarpur, Distt.-
West Champaran
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 11-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Shikarpur P.S. Case No.478 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 323,
504, 506, 379, 354, 354-A, 354-B of the Indian Penal Code
as well as Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act‘)
3. The accused/petitioners are named in the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52146 of 2024(5) dt.11-08-2025
2/3
and are in custody since 14.06.2024.
4. Allegation against the petitioners is to assault the
informant along with other co-accused persons, who was
minor at the date of occurrence in mango orchard for the
issue arising out of scuffling.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the mango orchard of petitioners, who are
members of scheduled caste community is adjacent to the
mango orchard of the informant and out of certain issues,
some altercation took place whereafter, the petitioners, who
are member of the scheduled caste community were
implicated falsely for non-penetrative sexual assault. It is
submitted that petitioners remain in custody for more than
one year and even not a single prosecution witness was
examined during the trial defying legal provisions of Sections
35 (1) and 35(2) of the POCSO Act.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for grant of bail
to the petitioners. Despite of service of notice, none appeared
on behalf of the informant.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52146 of 2024(5) dt.11-08-2025
3/3
taking note of fact as victim could not examined within the
prescribed time period of one month in view of Section 35(1)
of the POCSO Act and also the trial is not likely to conclude
within preferred time period of one year from the date of
cognizance in view of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act for said
reason even not a single prosecution witness was examined
during the trial now, accordingly, all above-named three
petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII-cum-
Special Judge POCSO, West Champaran, Bettiah in
connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No.478 of 2023, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the
CrPC/under Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T