Jharkhand High Court
Sandhya Bangla @ Sandhya Bagla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:1056]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 5948 of 2025
Sandhya Bangla @ Sandhya Bagla, aged about 55
years, wife of Sanjay Kumar Bagla, resident of Sri
Krishna Plywood, S.N. Ganguly Road, G.P.O.,
Ranchi, P.S.-Daily Market, District-Ranchi.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
------
03/ 15.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P
for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with POCSO Case No. 44 of 2018 (Daily Market P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018), registered for the offence under Sections 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act [subsequently cognizance is taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 17 and 19 of the POCSO Act], pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the First Information Report was registered against two accused persons namely Kunwar Kispotta @ Munna and Ritu @ Augusteen Mariam Kujur. He next submits that the Police upon conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet on 21.09.2018 against the aforesaid two named accused persons i.e. Kunwar Kispotta @ Munna and Ritu @ Augusteen Mariam Kujur for the offence under Sections 377, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4/6 -1- [2026:JHHC:1056] of the POCSO Act. He then submits that thereafter the case was committed to the Learned Special Court for trial, as Special POCSO Case No. 44 of 2018 and in the said case, the informant was examined as P.W.2 and she for the first time in the court has alleged that the petitioner has allured her for not filing any criminal case. He further submits that the informant thereafter filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning of the petitioner, as co-accused in the case, however, the said petition was rejected on 16.01.2024 by the learned Trial Court and being aggrieved with the same, the informant has moved before this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 464 of 2024, which was allowed by the co-ordinate bench of this court and the order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Misc. Cri. Application No. 2832 of 2023 has been set aside and the matter was remitted to the learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He also submits that thereafter the learned court by the order dated 05.07.2025 has taken the cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 17 and 19 of the POCSO Act and issued summon to the petitioner. He next submits that the victim boy has disclosed the said incident to his mother on 05.04.2018 and after sixteen days, the mother has lodged the FIR on 21.04.2018 and the mother has stated that she has already informed the Principal of the School, who happened to be this petitioner. He further submits that on the chargesheet, no protest petition was filed by the informant. He next submits that even under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the only material against this petitioner is that she has not complied Section 19 of the POCSO Act and it is also there that the informant has lodged the FIR belatedly. He also submits that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and disclosure to that effect has been made in -2- [2026:JHHC:1056] para-16 of the petition and further for proving the case under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, no custodial interrogation is required. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner, who happened to be the then Principal of the school, she may kindly be provided the privilege of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that serious allegation is there against the driver and aaya of the school van of sexually exploiting the minor child of the informant, however, she fairly submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 17 and 19 of the POCSO Act.
5. There is no doubt that there is serious allegation against Kunwar Kispotta @ Munna and Ritu @ Augusteen Mariam Kujur, who are the driver and aaya respectively of the school van and the chargesheet against them has been submitted by the police on 21.09.2018. Even in the investigation, nothing was found against this petitioner and in the trial, the informant has been examined as P.W.-2, wherein she has stated that she has disclosed the said crime to the petitioner and thereafter the informant has also filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the learned court and subsequently, the said rejection of the learned court was challenged before this court in the criminal revision, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this court has set aside the said order and remanded the case to the learned court and thereafter the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 17 and 19 of the POCSO Act.
6. To achieve the avowed purpose, a legal obligation under -3- [2026:JHHC:1056] Section 19 of the POCSO Act, is cast upon on a person to inform the relevant authorities specified thereunder when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed or has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed. Besides casting such legal obligation, the legislature thought it expedient to make failure to discharge the obligation thereunder as punishable, under Section 21 thereof. Such provisions are included with a view to ensure strict compliance of the provisions under the POCSO Act and thereby to ensure that the tender age of children is not being abused and their childhood and youth is protected against exploitation.
7. The petitioner was not knowing about the said crime and at the belated stage, the victim child has disclosed about the said incident to his mother and the mother has said to be informed about the said occurrence to the Principal of the school, who happened to be the petitioner herein. Only when the informant, in her statement stated and thereafter, a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was rejected and pursuant to the remand by the High Court, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.
8. In the case of Sanjay Chandra Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following pertinent observations in paras-21, 22, 23 and 40, which are as under:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to -4- [2026:JHHC:1056] ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the -5- [2026:JHHC:1056] accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
9. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.
10. In the case in hand, only not informing the competent authority, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, who happened to be the then Principal of the school and further the main allegation is there against Kunwar Kispotta @ Munna and Ritu @ Augusteen Mariam Kujur, who are the driver and aaya respectively of the school van and the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and further the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-16 of the petition, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the learned court within four weeks from today and in the event of her surrender / arrest, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five -6- [2026:JHHC:1056] thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in connection with POCSO Case No. 44 of 2018 (Daily Market P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018), subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-15.01.2026 Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.] -7-