Allowed

Shankar Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2017B.A./7244/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a POCSO case, directing the lower court to release him on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions preventing victim intimidation, after noting new evidence suggesting a cordial relationship.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court to enlarge petitioner on bail with bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties on conditions of appearance and non-intimidation of victim.

Shankar Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 7244 of 2017

¶3

Shankar Prasad ... ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State: Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, APP

¶6

2/06.10.2017: Heard both the counsels.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had earlier come up before this Hon'ble Court twice for bail which has been rejected first on 29.09.2016 in B.A. No. 7097 of 2016 and thereafter on 07.07.2017 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 368 of 2017 and now he is moving for bail afresh. He has further submitted that on the basis of certain new development, which is on the record, he is moving for bail afresh and he has pointed out from the deposition of the prosecutrix which is at Annexure-2 in which in para 5, it has come that this petitioner has not committed any wrong and it seems that relationship between them was cordial. So, on the basis of this deposition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that petitioner is in custody from 11.06.2016.

¶8

Learned counsel for the State, learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that earlier twice prayer for bail of this petitioner has been rejected and it is a case under the POCSO Act, therefore , the petitioner does not deserve bail. He has also submitted that apparently, victim happens to be a tribal girl and the matter should have also been taken into the ambit of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act but there is no sections to that effect, it should have been taken into account at the stage of investigation or by the learned trial court itself while taking cognizance. Accordingly, it should be reflected so in the order.

¶9

Having gone through the arguments of both the sides, having gone through the records and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the court below to enlarge the petitioner, above

¶10

-2-

¶11

named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- ( Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1^st Additional Session Judge-cum-Special Judge, Latehar in connection with POCSO Case No. 11 of 2016 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016, subject to the condition that petitioner will appear on each and every date fixed in the trial court unless dispensed by the learned court below, and he will not intimidate or harass the victim girl in any way, whatsoever.

¶12

( Ratnaker Bhengra,J.)

¶13

Sharda/-

Shankar Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sumit Mahto Alias Sumit Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Shamshad Alias Jacky Alias Jicku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Panchanand Kumar Alias Panchanand Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surendra Sahu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Khalkun Khatoon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand