Allowed

Pritam Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2018Cr.A(SJ)/429/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjudicated a bail appeal in a POCSO case. Finding that the appellant had not been implicated for the core offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and was willing to pay victim compensation, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order rejecting bail.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside and appellant directed to be released on bail upon depositing Rs. 5,000 as compensation and furnishing a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties.

Pritam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.429 of 2018

¶3

Pritam Kumar .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Munni Kumari .... .... .... Respondents ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

------ For the Appellant : Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. ------

¶6

Order No.05 Dated- 18.06.2018

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the

¶8

State.

¶9

Though notice was validly served upon the respondent no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶10

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.102 of 2017, corresponding to POCSO No.29 of 2017 registered under Sections 376/511/420/120B/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8 of POCSO Act and under Section 3 (1) (i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected his prayer for regular bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 12.12.2017 and that after investigation, police has not implicated the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code though the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as well. It is further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay Rs.5000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant-respondent no.2 and undertakes that he will not disturb or annoy her in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of learned court below be set aside and the appellant be admitted to bail.

¶12

The learned Addl.P.P. defends the impugned order and opposes the prayer for bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the appellant be released on bail. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.102 of 2017, corresponding to POCSO No.29 of 2017, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on his depositing Rs.5000/- as ad interim victim compensation drawn in favour of informant-respondent no.2- Munni Kumari and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.102 of 2017, corresponding to POCSO No.29 of 2017 with the condition that he will not disturb or annoy the informant-respondent no.2- Munni Kumari in any manner during the pendency of the case.

¶14

In case the demand draft is deposited by the appellant, learned court below is directed to issue notice to the respondent no.2 – Munni Kumari and on her proper identification, handover the demand draft to her forthwith.

¶15

In the result, this appeal stands allowed.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu/Gunjan-

Pritam Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kumar 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

Jamila Khatoon Vs Noor Hassan Khan And Ors.

Sharad Chandra Mishra Alias Sharad Chandra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Most Sahodri Devi Vs Lilawati Devi and Anr.

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quarban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fahim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand