IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3538 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ======================================================

Indal Kumar S/o Sanjay Mandal @ Sanjay Kumar Mandal Resident of village- Simra, PS- Taikkapatti, District- Purnea ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Bihar

2. Mr. Y Y Y ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

3 16-03-2026 1. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2025 and order of sentence dated 01.07.2025 passed by Shri Ranjan Kumar Raina, Additional District and Sessions Judge Seventh-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Purnea in SPL. (POCSO) Case No. 50/2021, CIS No. 35/2022 arising out of Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 47/2021 dated 16.03.2021 registered under Sections 342, 363, 366A, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C., Section 6 of the POCSO Act added vide order dated 7.4.2021 and charges have been framed under Sections 363/34, 376, 366 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned court below has convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo S.I. for three months. The appellant has been further convicted under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall suffer three months S.I. and under Section 366 of the I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo S.I. for three month. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently and the period undergone shall be adjusted from the sentence awarded.

3. As per the prosecution case on 05.03.2021 the minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years went outside the home to attend nature call and the appellant along with other accused persons kidnapped the informant’s daughter forcibly for the purpose of marriage.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant on the point of suspension of sentence and grant of bail submits that the victim was having love relationship with the appellant and she eloped with the appellant for performing marriage. The age of the victim has been assessed by the doctor between 16-17 years and as per judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Court on its own Motion vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. Ref. 2/2024) reported in 2024 SC OnLine Delhi 4484 margin of error of two years is required to be applied while assessing the age of the victim. The victim girl remained with the appellant for about 12 days but she did not raise any alarm and the appellant has remained in custody for about two years.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that charges were framed against the appellant under Section 363/34, 376, 366 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim which she has supported in her statement given before the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even before the court below during the course of trial. At the time of hearing the application for grant of bail the Court may not go into appreciation of evidence.

6. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties, taking into consideration the fact that the victim consistently has said that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault against her will, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at