Full Bench dismissed the petitioner's bail petition in a Tarhasi P.S. case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act, citing the heinous nature of the crime against minors and rejecting the claim of false implication.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) B.A. No. 4964 of 2020
Binay Kumr Pandey ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
03/Dated: 13/09/2020
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will comply the order dated 27.07.2020 with regard to defects.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is para-teacher and co-villager of the victim and he has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No. 22/2020 for the offence registered under Sections 354 / 354A I.P.C. and Sections 8 / 10 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and now charge has also been framed on 10.06.2020 under Sections 354 I.P.C. and Section 10 of POCSO Act, as such, petitioner, who is in custody since 19.03.2020, may be enlarged on bail as the petitioner has been falsely implicated in village politics as he was working as a para-teacher.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that petitioner, being para-teacher, committed such heinous offence with two minor girls whose date of birth are 27.03.2007 and 25.05.2007. The prosecution case has been supported by the Headmaster, whose statement has been recorded in para-27 of the case diary and Member of Panchayat Samiti, whose statement has been recorded in para-28 of the case diary, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
-2-
Considering the rival submission of the parties and looking into gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year from today, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before learned trial court.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, involved in a heinous offence against minors, is entitled to bail despite a compromise and false implication claims.
Whether bail should be granted given the gravity of the offence under Sections 354 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act.
Binay Kumr Pandey
The State of Jharkhand
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
