Dismissed

Shivlal Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2019Cr.A(SJ)/317/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of the appellant in a POCSO case. While the lower court had already examined two witnesses and the trial was estimated to take six months, the High Court denied bail at this stage but directed a timely conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail was rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial within six months.

Shivlal Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal No. 317 of 2019

¶2

Shivlal Soren ..... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ---------

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K.Murty, Adv. For the Respondent : APP ---------

¶7

06/Dated: 23.07.2019

¶8

The sole appellant has filed this appeal u/s 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Actcum-Children Court, Giridih, whereby prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected in Children Case No. 07 of 2018.

¶9

It appears that this appeal was filed on 15.03.2019 and it was admitted on 18.05.2019.

¶10

On 01.07.2019, status of the case was called for.

¶11

Perused the report dated 12.07.2019 submitted by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Addl. Sesssions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, Children Court, Giridih, which reveals that charge has been framed and out of eight final form witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined and the trial Court estimated six months time to conclude the trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the appellant is the husband of the deceased and as per the case of the prosecution, on 14.09.2017 the appellant had gone to the house of the father-in-law and disclosed that Sonamani Devi had fled way from his house, thereafter he searched her but she did not trace out and he is in custody since 19.09.2017, so appellant deserves the privilege of bail.

¶13

In view of the report and also the fact that the trial is in progress and the appellant is the husband of the deceased, at this stage, I am not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

¶14

-2-

¶15

Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months as stipulated in the report from the date of receipt/production of the order. If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of this order, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶16

Let a copy of order be sent to the court below through 'FAX' cost to be borne by appellant.

¶17

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶18

Amardeep /

Shivlal Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivlal Soren 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

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through C B I

Jailum Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rabbani Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deonish Kiro Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

MD Javed Alias MD Jawed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hiru Mahato Alias Hiralal Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand