The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the petitioner's bail application. The court held that the direct evidence and prosecution witness statement, supported by the victim's medical report, could not be ignored despite the minor delay in lodging the FIR.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner cannot be released.
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. 3024 of 2017
Lakhi Pall @ Lakshmi Kant Pal @ L.K. Pall, son of late Prahalad Chandra Pall, resident of Maurya Apartment, Flat No. 2/1, Radhika Nagar, PO- Telco, PS- Telco, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, A.P.P
06/08.09.2017 Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The petitioner has been made an accused in Telco P.S. Case No. 177 of 2016 which was registered for offences under Sections 376 I.P.C and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Throwing doubt over registration of the First Information Report, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inordinate delay of two days in lodging the First Information Report. The petitioner who is an aged issue-less person who could not have committed the crime as alleged by the prosecution and after a charge-sheet has been filed in this case, he deserves bail.
Opposing the prayer for grant of bail, the learned A.P.P submits that the victim has supported the allegations of rape against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the month of August, 2016 when she was examined by the doctors she was found carrying pregnancy of 10 weeks. The learned A.P.P submits that a pregnant victim has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in
the case and direct evidence against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in a case involving rape and POCSO offences considering the FIR delay and medical evidence of the victim.
Lakhi Pall
The State of Jharkhand
Shree Chandrashekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
