IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2700 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2020 Thana- MAHNAR District- Vaishali ======================================================

Md. Wakil @ Md. Wokil S/o Md. Hatis @ Md. Hadish R/o Vill- Hasanpur, P.S.- Mahnar, Distt- Vaishali ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ram Kumar Singh S/o Rambali Singh R/o Gautam Tola Hasanpur Junaid, P.S.- Mahnar, Distt- Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Syed Ashfaque Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 27-01-2026 1. As per Office report dated 05.12.2025, notice has been served upon the Respondent No. 2 (informant), but no one has appeared on his behalf.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. This appeal under Sections 415 (2) and 430(1) of B.N.S.S.

has been preferred by the appellant namely- Md. Wakil @ Md. Wokil against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2025 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, VI cum Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur in POCSO G.R. Case No. 48/2020, arising out of Mahnar P.S. Case No. 379 of 2020 Under Sections 354, 354A, 354B IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, District Vaishali, convicting and sentencing the appellant for seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment. 4. The appellant has prayed for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. As per the prosecution case, the informant Ram Kumar Singh on 02.12.2020 has reported in writing to the S.H.O., Mahnar Police Station that at about 02:00 P.M., while the appellant was fluffing the cotton of the quilt on roof, the daughter of the informant aged about ten years went to the roof with a cup of tea for the appellant, it is alleged that the appellant forcibly started touching her private parts but, somehow, she managed to escape and informed her mother about the incident.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant is in jail since 3^rd of December, 2020. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is up to seven years, against which appellant has already served more than five years in jail.

It is also submitted that on account of huge pendency of cases before this Court, there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. Lastly, it is submitted that in case appellant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in early hearing of this appeal.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail by contending that prosecution has proved it’s case beyond reasonable doubt, hence at this stage presumption of innocence is not available to the appellant but he could not dispute the incarceration period of the appellant, as noted above.

8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the gravity of the offence as well as looking to the detention period of the appellant in jail as mentioned above, I find that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal in the light of judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259, wherein, it has been observed by the Apex Court that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 percent of the actual sentence undergone can b