Dismissed

Ujjawal Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2019Cr.A(SJ)/4/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application by appellants charged with rape, assault, and sexual harassment. The court found the evidence credible and refused bail, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within four months while offering a chance to renew bail prayers thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed; trial directed to be concluded within four months; liberty to renew bail prayer if trial not concluded in time.

Ujjawal Mahato 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. 4 of 2019

¶3

Ujjawal Mahato 2. Rahin Mahato ….. Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Malti Tuddu ….. Respondents

¶7

---------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶9

--------- For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate

¶10

--------- C.A.V On: 15/07/2019 Pronounced on: 18/07/2019

¶11

The present appeal has preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 66/2018 lodged on 23.09.2018 under sections 341/323/354(B)/376/511/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 67 of I.T. Act & u/s 3 (XI) (XII) SC/ST Act whereby and whereunder the learned court below has refused to release the appellants on bail and dismissed the application.

¶12

It appears that this appeal was filed on 02.01.2019 and on 17.01.2019 notice was directed to be issued to respondent no. 2. Pursuant to notice, respondent no. 2 has appeared through learned counsel.

¶13

The prosecution case, in short, is that, the instant case has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant-Malti Tudu addressed before the O/C of Gamharia P.S alleging therein that on 14.09.2018 at about 3.30 p.m she along with her husband was going to her maternal house by Kaccha road. It is further alleged

¶14

that at abut 150 mtrs from east side of Birajpur station, appellant no. 1 & other 6 persons stopped them and caught hold of them. Thereafter, thy took her behind the bushed and unclothed her and tried to commit rape upon her. It is further alleged that the appellant no. 1 also made video footage and threatened her to kill if she discloses the incident. It is further alleged that later on she came to know that her video has been uploaded in whatsapp group. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged against appellant no. 1 & 6 others.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant no. 1 is in jail custody since 25.09.2018 and appellant no. 2 is in jail custody since 26.09.2018. Further, it has been submitted that there is delay of 10 days in lodging the F.I.R.. Further, it has been submitted that charge-sheet in the present case has already been submitted on 31.10.2018. It has also been submitted that no case under the alleged offences is made out against the appellant.

¶16

Perused the case diary. From perusal of case diary, it appears that in para 45 I.O has recorded the statement of accused- Rahin Mahto @ Chhotu. Para 52 of the case diary reveals that T.I.P was conducted in which prosecutrix identified the appellant no. 2-Rahin Mahto @ Chhotu and accused Chandradev Mahli @ Babu Mahli and accused Jagdish Lohar. In para 78 of the case diary, I.O has recorded that alleged mobile has been recovered from the house of appellant no. 2-Ujjawal Mahto. In para

¶17

88, witness- Prakash Rana-Officer-in-Charge, who has stated that confessional statement of appellant no. 1 Ujjawal Mahato has been recorded in which he has confessed his guilt and further accepted the participation of the appellant no. 2 Rahin Mahato and others in the alleged incident. Further, this witness has stated that alleged mobile has been seized and video recording proves the incident true.

¶18

Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail.

¶19

Further, it appears that charge has been framed on 26.03.2019 under sections 341, 323, 354 (B), 504, 506 I.P.C and under section 67 of the I.T. Act and under section 3(i)w of the SC/ST Act and u/s 3(2) (v) (a) of the SC/ST Act and out of five witnesses, one witness has been examined and trial is in progress.

¶20

Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is given to the appellants to renew their prayer for bail after four months, if the trial is not concluded within stipulated period.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below through FAX.

¶22

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶23

Satyarthi/

Ujjawal Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjawal Mahato 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

Dr Abha Rani Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Gopal Karthikeyan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation

Shiv Ranjan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through C B I

Savita Kumari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shiv Ranjan Prasad Vs the Union of India through C B I