Per рассмотрения anticipatory bail application under POCSO Act, the court found the petitioner in default for failing to appear before the court as ordered. Consequently, the application was rejected.
The anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
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
A.B.A. No. 336 of 2018
Pankaj Ram @ Pankaj Kumar …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Mahendra Ram 3. Chandni Kumari …… Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate For the State : A.P.P
03/Dated: 03/05/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with POCSO P.S. Case No. 29/2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 877/2017, the case registered under Sections 8 of POCSO Act and section 341,323,504,506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that under order dated 21.02.2018 the petitioner and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to remain physically present before this court on 03.05.2018.
Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner is present but petitioner is not present and thereby petitioner has failed to comply the order of this court.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail given his non-appearance in court.
Whether the petitioner has complied with the court order to remain physically present.
Pankaj Ram @ Pankaj Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Mahendra Ram
Chandni Kumari
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
