The court held that bail can be granted when medical evidence does not support serious allegations and the petitioner has clean antecedents.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant as well as Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

29.07.2025 in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 24.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 76, 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(3).3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act .

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that on 22.07.2025 when she she went to attend nature’s call, then the petitioner caught hold of her and treated her with insolence, then she came and narrated the entire incident to her mother, thereafter informant’s mother went to the house of the petitioner to tell about the incident to his father, then the petitioner along with other co-accused persons assaulted her with fists and kicks. When the informant went to save her mother, the accused persons assaulted her also and snatched gold chain of Rs.30,000/- from her neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is case and counter case between the parties and both the parties are agnates to each other. Although there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted the informant by means of knife and the informant received injury but the injury report of the informant suggest that injury inflicted upon her is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance which suggest that medical report does not support the allegation in the FIR. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner has clean antecedent and medical report does not support the allegation in the FIR, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special judge, POCSO Act , West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)