Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PATNA HIGH COURT
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA, JJ
Ranjeet Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
8 01-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Priya as also the learned APP for the State, Ms. Shashibala Verma and the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Aditi Sharma.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 29.10.2024 and 30.10.2024 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Patna in Special POCSO Case No. 7 of 2018 (arising out of Pandarak P.S. Case No. 68 of 2017) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 D of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from S
The court confirmed that the absence of conclusive evidence affects the conviction while providing bail pending appeal regarding serious charges.
Court grants bail due to uncertainties in prosecution case and prolonged appellate process.
Court upheld conviction and refused bail due to consistent evidence from victim regarding abduction and assault.
Conviction affirmed based on oral testimony and medical evidence; bail denied based on severity of the offense.
The court emphasized the need for accurate age assessment of minors in POCSO cases and the implications of evidentiary deficiencies on conviction.
The age of the victim and lack of concrete evidence may lead to suspension of sentence under specific circumstances.
The court denies bail to an appellant convicted of serious offenses against a minor, underscoring the severity of the allegations.
The grant of bail is justified when medical evidence contradicts allegations of sexual assault.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article