Allowed

Pankaj Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 May 2019Cr.A(SJ)/188/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail appeals against an order rejecting regular bail for an appellant charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Finding the appellant mentally mature and the victim consenting, the court set aside the impugned order and directed release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.01.2019 set aside; appellant directed to be released on bail bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties of the like amount, one being his father.

Pankaj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 188 of 2019

¶3

Pankaj Kumar Saw @ Pankaj Kumar Sao …Appellant -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent

¶4

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

For the Appellant :- Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.K.Appu, A.P.P.

¶6

05/02.05.2019 The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chatra in connection with Child Act Case No. 06 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, whereby the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has erroneously rejected the bail application of the appellant primarily relying upon the report of medical board, RINPAS which suggested that the appellant is having matured mind and can understand the nature of offence and the consequence thereof. It is further submitted that there was love affair between the appellant and the victim. At the time of the alleged offence, both were aged about 17 years. The court below also failed to appreciate that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that she had gone out with the appellant willingly and wanted to solemnize marriage with him. Though the doctor has found the sign of sexual intercourse in the medical examination of the victim girl, yet considering the fact that she was also matured enough having attained the age of 17 years and was also aware of the consequences, the appellant’s prayer for bail should not have been rejected by the court below merely because she was technically treated to be a minor. The appellant is in judicial custody since 06.06.2018 and therefore, he may be given privilege of regular bail.

¶8

-2-

¶9

Learned A.P.P. while opposing the appellant’s prayer for regular bail submits that the learned court below has found the appellant to be mentally, physically and sexually matured enough to understand the consequence of such offence and thus has rightly rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am inclined to grant the privilege of regular bail to the appellant. As such, the impugned order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra is set aside.

¶11

Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with Child Act Case no. 06 of 2018, subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be the father of the appellant.

¶12

The present appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶13

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶14

Ritesh

Pankaj Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Saw 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

Sri Prabir Gorai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nimai Chandra Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Sushil Kumar Chhabra And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tannu Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rushi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Saw Alias Chhoti Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand