Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2020A.B.A./2857/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a special POCSO case and a related police case concerning outraging modesty, subject to surrender within four weeks and specific bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender within four weeks and release on bail on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties to satisfaction of Additional District Judge IX, Dhanbad.

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 2857 of 2020

¶3

¶4

1.Sumit Kumar 2.Prakash Bouri … … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P.P.

¶8

¶9

3/15.09.2020 Heard the parties.

¶10

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 67 of 2019.

¶11

It has been alleged that when the informant was returning from a marriage ceremony, the petitioner no. 1 had tried to drag her to a lonely place. On objection, both the petitioners had threatened her for dire consequences and when she raised alarm, nearby persons rescued her.

¶12

Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to institution of the present case, the wife of the petitioner no. 2 had also instituted a case being Sindri P. S. Case No. 42 of 2019 in which allegations were levelled against the maternal uncles of the present informant regarding hurling abuses in the name of caste and outraging the modesty of the wife of the petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel submits that subsequent FIR is a retaliation to the earlier FIR and in fact on the behest of the well-wishers, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory

¶14

bail.

¶15

It appears from the impugned FIR that the informant who is a 15 years old girl, used to reside in the house of her maternal uncle. There has been a case and counter case between both the sides with respect to outraging the modesty of the present informant as well as the wife of the petitioner no. 2. It further appears that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶16

-2-

¶17

On consideration of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

Accordingly, the petitioners above named are directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge IX, Dhanbad in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 67 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

This application stands allowed.

¶20

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶21

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Sumit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar 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

Manoj Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panda Munda Alias Ravi Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Singha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saheb Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Kumar Ravi Alias Bablu Vs the State of Jharkhand