Patna High Court
Sonu @ Sonu Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.38 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2021 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sonu @ Sonu alam S/o Naiem Miya Resident of Village -Nagra ,P.S. -
Khaira (Nagra), District- Saran ( Chapra).
2. Kesar Ali S/o Mostakim Miya @ Mastkin Miya Resident of Village
-Nagra ,P.S. - Khaira (Nagra), District- Saran ( Chapra).
3. Babu Ali S/o Asraf Ali Resident of Village -Nagra ,P.S. - Khaira (Nagra),
District- Saran ( Chapra).
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shaba Praveen, Resident of Village -Nagra ,P.S.- Khaira, District- Saran.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the State : Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2026
On call, none appears for the petitioners. However,
learned APP for the State is present.
2. The present revision petition has been filed against
the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial
POCSO Case No. 86 of 2021 (arising out of Khaira P.S. Case
No. 366 of 2021 registered under Sections 376(A) (D), 506/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO
Act) whereby and whereunder the application dated 21.09.2024
filed by the petitioners under Section 311 and 233(3) CrPC for
recalling of PW-1 and PW-2, informant and her mother, has
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.38 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
2/4
been rejected by the learned trial court.
3. From perusal of record, I find that the impugned
order has been challenged on the ground that the said order is
without consideration on point of law as well as on fact.
Learned trial court has failed to consider that on 02.04.2024,
matter has already been compromised between the parties. The
learned trial court has also not considered the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mannan Shaikh Vs.
State of West Bengal, (2014) 13 SCC 59 wherein it has been
held that Section 311 CrPC enables criminal court at any stage
of inquiry or trial or other proceeding can recall and re-examine
any person already examined. It has also been submitted that
learned trial court has also not considered that no injury was
found on the victim girl and she was aged about 18-20 years
and, therefore, she was major at the time of occurrence and
provisions of POCSO Act is not applicable. Thus, it has been
submitted that for these reasons, re-examination of victim girl as
well as her mother was crucial for a fair trial.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the present petition. Learned APP submits
that the learned trial court has considered the fact that the
petitioners earlier filed an application dated 03.04.2024 under
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.38 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
3/4
Sections 311 and 233(3) of CrPC, which was rejected by the
learned trial court, against which, a revision was preferred
before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 543 of 2024 and
the same was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2024, giving
liberty to the petitioners to file afresh petition under Section 311
CrPC on other grounds but no ground has been brought on
record before the court of consideration of prayer for recall of
the witnesses. The learned APP further submits that charges
have been framed under Section 376 of the IPC and the ground
of compromise could not be basis for recalling witnesses, as the
said offence is not compoundable. The learned APP also submits
that the testimonies of the victim and her mother have already
been completed after their cross-examinations, and the matter is
currently fixed for defence evidence and arguments, as is
evident from the impugned order. Therefore, the present
revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the averments made in the
revision petition and the submissions made by the learned APP
for the State, I find that the petition for the recall of prosecution
witnesses was filed on the ground that a compromise had taken
place between the parties, and for this reason, the victim and her
mother should be recalled for further cross-examination. From
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.38 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
4/4
perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned trial court
considered this aspect and observed that it was a contested case
in which the evidence of the witnesses had already been
recorded and their cross-examination completed. Since the
offence is not compoundable, the compromise has no bearing on
the merits of the case. Therefore, finding no illegality, infirmity,
or impropriety in the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, the
same is hereby affirmed.
6. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2026 Transmission Date 14.07.2026
