Patna High Court – Orders
Vijay @ Aman vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 2026
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1712 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2022 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Anil Kumar S/O Bino Sao R/O Village- Jitwarpur, P.S- Baughat, Distt.-
Sheikhpura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Victim Mother W/O Kaushar Ansari R/O Village- Saren Muslim Tola, P.S-
Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jahanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1612 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2022 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Vijay @ Aman son of Sushil @ Sitlu @ Sillu Village- Chahalpatti, Ps-
Raaund (Rajaund), OP Kithana, Dist- Kaithal (Haryana)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gulsan Khatoon Wife of Kausar Ansari Village- Saren, Muslim Tola, Ps-
Makhdumpur (Tehta O.P.), Dist- Jehanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1712 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1612 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 08-07-2026
Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment;
hence, they are being heard together.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. These appeals are taken up for consideration of the
appellants’ prayer for suspension of sentence and their release
on bail during the pendency of their respective appeals.
4. These appeals have been preferred against the
Judgment of Conviction dated 11.03.2025 and Order of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1712 of 2025(8) dt.08-07-2026
2/5
Sentence dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge- VI- cum- Special Judge POCSO, Jehanabad, in
Special POCSO Case No. 73 of 2022 arising out of
Makhdumpur (Tehta O.P) P.S. Case No. 99 of 2022 whereby
and whereunder the appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 370(3) 467,
373/34, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 4 &
17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 8 & 9 of the Immoral and
Traffic (Prevention) Act and has been sentenced for the said
offences and the appellant no. 2 has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 366(A), 467, 471, 363,
373, 468, 420 and Section 120(B) of the IPC and Section 4 of
the POCSO Act and has been sentenced for the said offence.
5. Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, Anil Kumar submits that against the major
punishment of 10 years of S.I. awarded upon the appellant for
the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) & 370(3) of the
IPC and Sections 4 & 17 of the POCSO Act he has already
served more than four years in jail and there is less possibility of
early hearing of this appeal in near future. As far as the merit of
the accusation levelled against the appellant for the charged
offences is concerned, the appellant has been wrongly convicted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1712 of 2025(8) dt.08-07-2026
3/5
for the aforesaid offences as during the course of investigation,
the victim, who recorded her statement under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, said nothing about this
appellant’s role in taking and enticing her away and the entire
role in the commission of the alleged offence was attributed by
the victim against the appellant’s wife. In support of this
statement, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
to the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C (Ext.-3) as well as her deposition recorded by her before
the trial court. It is lastly submitted that the appellant’s appeal is
of the year 2025 and there is little chance of its early hearing in
near future.
6. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant Vijay @ Aman, submits that in the allegation of
taking away the victim, the appellant was not involved as per
the victim’s own evidence and the entire allegation in that
regard was levelled by her against co-accused Pooja and the role
of this appellant surfaced only after the victim reached the State
of Haryana and started residing with the co-accused Pooja and
Raj Kumar. If the allegation levelled by the prosecution are to
be taken into account then no serious role of this appellant in the
commission of the alleged offences for which he has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1712 of 2025(8) dt.08-07-2026
4/5
convicted appears as he simply entered into the matrimonial
relationship with the victim bonafidely. As far as the age of the
victim at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence is
concerned, the medical expert opined her age between 16-17
years and if the permissible margin of two years on the higher
side as per settled proposition of law, is taken into account then
the victim may be treated as having attained majority at the time
of commission of the alleged offences and further, the victim
herself stated in her statement that this appellant had married
with her in a court and she did not make any statement showing
her resistance in that event. It is lastly submitted that this
appellant has served four years, one month and eight days in jail
against the major punishment of 10 years awarded upon him for
the offences under Sections 120(B), and 370(3) of the IPC and
Sections 4 & 7 of the POCSO Act there is less possibility of
early hearing of this appeal in near future.
7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2,
despite the notice having been validly served upon her.
8. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that
both were equally involved in trafficking the victim to Haryana
where she was subjected to sexual assaultt committed by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1712 of 2025(8) dt.08-07-2026
5/5
appellant Vijay @ Aman and the victim was a minor girl, so, the
appellant Vijay @ Aman’s defence as to he entered into
matrimonial relationship with her is wholly untenable in the eye
of law.
9. Considering the above statements and the grounds
taken by the appellants as discussed above mainly taking note of
their total custody period and unlikelihood of hearing of these
appeals in near future, this court is inclined to release the
appellants on bail. Accordingly, let the appellants above-named
be enlarged on bail during the pendency of these appeals on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI- cum-
Special Judge POCSO, Jehanabad, in Special POCSO Case No.
73 of 2022 arising out of Makhdumpur (Tehta O.P) P.S. Case
No. 99 of 2022.
10. The sentence of imprisonment awarded upon the
appellants by the trial court shall remain suspended during their
bail period.
11. List these appeals for hearing on their turn.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
siddharthkr/-
U T
