Johnson Aind v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application under sections 376AB IPC and POCSO regarding rape of a six-year-old girl, the Single Judge rejected the prayer for bail considering the serious nature of the offence and the risk of absconding despite the petitioners undertaking to remove defects later.
What did the court decide?
Bail regular bail prayer rejected to the petitioner.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4231 of 2020
Johnson Aind … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.03 Dated- 01.12.2020
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No.11 of 2020, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 03 of 2020 registered under sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail in a case involving rape of a six-year-old girl under 376AB IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the seriousness of the allegation and risk of absconding preclude the grant of bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Johnson Aind
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- B.A./4231/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court