Allowed

Fahim Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2018Cr.A(SJ)/465/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application challenging the Sessions Court's denial of regular bail under POCSO and the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court emphasized the lack of specific averments regarding the public nature of the incident and ordered the release of the appellant upon deposit of victim compensation and furnishing a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed, impugned bail order set aside, appellant directed to be released on bail upon deposit of Rs. 2,000 as victim compensation and furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties

Fahim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 465 of 2018

¶3

Fahim Ansari … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Hridyanand Ram

¶7

Asha Kumari … Respondents

¶8

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Adv. For the State : Addl. PP

¶10

04 / 18.06.2018 Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 even after repeated calls.

¶11

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Garhwa in POCSO case No. 37 of 2017 in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. no. 1265 of 2017, POCSO no. 37 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Amendment Act) and Section 8 of POCSO Act whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below failed to take note of the fact that there is no specific averment in the written report that occurrence took place in a place within public view and that the appellant has been into custody since 04.12.2017. It is further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay Rs. 2,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant-respondent no. 2 without prejudice to his defence and that the appellant undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of this case hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Garhwa in POCSO case No. 37 of 2017 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered view that this a fit case where the appellant be released on bail, hence the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Garhwa in POCSO case No. 37 of 2017 in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. no. 1265 of 2017, being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs. 2,000/- drawn in favour of informant-respondent no. 2- Hridyanand Ram and on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, Garhwa in POCSO case No. 74 of 2017 in connection with Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. no. 1265 of 2017 during pendency of the case with the condition that the appellant will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during pendency of this case.

¶15

In case the demand draft is deposited by the appellant, learned Court below is directed to issue notice to the informant-respondent no. 2- Hridyanand Ram and on his proper identification, handover the demand draft to him forthwith.

¶16

In the result this appeal is allowed.

¶17

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶18

Smita/-

Fahim Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fahim Ansari 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

Pritam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quarban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand