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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ
Salman Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 22.01.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 27.01.2025 in connection with Spl (POCSO) No. 32 of 2022 arising out of Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI-cum-Special (POCSO) Judge, Araira, for the offence punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’), Section 06 of the Protection of Chi
Conviction affirmed based on oral testimony and medical evidence; bail denied based on severity of the offense.
Juvenile status considered in sentencing under POCSO and SC/ST Acts; bail granted based on procedural deficiencies.
The evidentiary support must substantiate allegations of serious crimes against the accused without granting bail.
The conviction under POCSO was overturned due to delays in FIR lodging and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
The court confirmed that the absence of conclusive evidence affects the conviction while providing bail pending appeal regarding serious charges.
The grant of bail is justified when medical evidence contradicts allegations of sexual assault.
A prima facie evaluation necessitates bail when conflicting evidence undermines the prosecution’s case.
The court found prima facie evidence insufficient to uphold conviction, leading to the suspension of the appellant's sentence pending appeal.
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.
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