HC Ranchi declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of forcibly taking a minor girl under IPC and POCSO, ruling that serious allegations and need for custodial interrogation precluded bail.
Anticipatory bail prayed for by the petitioner is 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. 155 of 2019
Sajan Hembrom … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Rai, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.06 Dated- 15.02.2019
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.300 of 2018 registered under sections 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of POCSO Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner has forcibly taken the victim-minor girl of 14 years in motorcycle along with coaccused persons. It is further submitted that the doctor who examined the victim has opined that the age of victim is 16 years. It is next submitted that this false case has been foisted because of land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing the offence of procuring of a minor girl and further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has categorically made serious allegation against the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case hence, he ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail where the petitioner is accused of abducting a minor under IPC and POCSO.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary despite the victim's age discrepancy and allegations of false enmity.
Sajan Hembrom
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
