The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner, Maqsud Alam, accused under Sections 366A/34 IPC and POCSO, finding he was falsely implicated. The victim's deposition contained no statement against him.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.
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. 5787 of 2016
Maqsud Alam ……..Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ………. Opposite Party
--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arjun N. Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, A.P.P. -----------
06/Dated:03.10.2016
The petitioner has been made an accused for the offence registered under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he happens to be the father of accused Raja Alam, who had forcibly kidnapped the girl and made her sit in the car alleged to be occupied by this petitioner and other accused persons. It is argued that the victim girl has been examined during trial as P.W.-5 and she has not made any incriminating statement against the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner is in custody since, 23.02.2016.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses in the case diary have supported the fact that this petitioner along with other co-accused had come in the car and assisted accused Raja Alam in kidnapping the victim girl.
Heard. Considering that the victim girl in her deposition during trail has not stated anything against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, in connection with B.T. P.S. Case No.20 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.118 of 2015 and POCSO Case no.31 of 2015.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall remain present before the trial court till as and when directed by the trial court till conclusion of the trial, failing which, the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate order for securing the presence of the petitioner.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)
Tarun/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a POCSO case where the victim has not made an incriminating statement against him.
Maqsud Alam
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
