Dismissed

Shishupal Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2018Cr.A(SJ)/244/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against the superior court's order rejecting bail in a POCSO and kidnapping case. The court affirmed the impugned order, citing that conviction is likely after witness examination, but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, allowing appeal renewal if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; impugned order affirmed; direction to trial court to conclude trial within six months.

Shishupal Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (Sj) No. 244 of 2018

¶2

Shishupal Rana …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Liba Ram …........Respondents

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶4

For the Appellant :Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, Advocate For the State :A.P.P.

¶5

C.A.V on 29./06/2018 Pronounced on 03/07.2018

¶6

The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the order dated 06.01.2018 passed in G.R. Case No. 2110 of 2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 125 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2110 of 2016 for the offence under sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, final form has been submitted under sections 363/366A/376 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(XII) SC/ST Act and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

¶7

The instant case has been lodged on the basis of written report of informant-Liba Ram alleging therein that on 20.07.2016 his minor daughter aged about 16 years has been kidnapped by this appellant with false assurance to marry with her. It is further alleged that her daughter is traceless.

¶8

It appears that earlier the appellant had filed Cr. Appeal (Sj) No. 72 of 2017 and this court under order dated 27.01.2017 admitted the appellant on provisional bail and notice was issued to the informant and her daughter and on 19.07.2017, the appellant, respondent no. 2-informant, respondent no. 3-Madhuri Kumari(produced from the Observation Home) were physically present and possibility of framing scheme for rehabilitation was made but could not be succeeded and the appellant was directed to surrender before the court below on or before 21.08.2017 thereafter on 15.09.2017 the matter was heard on merit and the same was reserved and under order dated 19.09.2017, keeping in view the statement of the victim recorded under section 164

¶9

Cr.P.C and the nature of offence the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected .

¶10

Thereafter, this second criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that appellant has remained in custody for one year and three months and charge has been framed and two witnesses have been examined.

¶11

Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant.

¶12

Perused the report dated 15.05.2018 submitted by learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-1-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Hazaribag which reveals that till date only one witness namely, Munia Devi-P.W.1 has been examined in this case and at least six months time is required to conclude the trial of this case.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find no merit in the criminal appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Order dated 06.01.2018 passed in G.R. Case No. 2110 of 2016, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 125 of 2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cumSpecial Judge (POCSO) Act, Hazariabg is hereby affirmed with direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Hazariabg to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶14

If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer.

¶15

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Hazariabg through FAX for compliance.

¶16

Satyarthi/-

¶17

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Shishupal Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishupal Rana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhnad

Shubham Kumar Alias Subham Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wahid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afjal Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bipta Oraon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mahadeo Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand