Single judge order in bail application by an accused in POCSO Case 176/2015 regarding charges of rape on a minor girl, where the prayer for bail was rejected.
Prayer for bail was rejected and petitioner was not enlarged on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 1314 of 2016 Sheshnath Yadav @ Hero ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------
Prosecution.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in connection with Adityapur R.I.T. P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2015, S.T. No. 105 of 2015.
There is direct allegation against the petitioner to have committed rape upon the informant, who is a minor girl.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Sheshnath Yadav @ Hero, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
R.Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner accused of rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act should be enlarged on bail.
Whether the petitioner's prayer for bail shall be allowed or rejected.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sheshnath Yadav @ Hero
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. MISHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
