Dismissed

Umesh Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Oct 2020B.A./5848/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding non-compoundable offences under IPC and POCSO Act involving a minor victim aged 13-14 years, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petition due to the gravity of the offence despite an alleged settlement. The petitioner, aged 55, claimed the FIR was lodged mistakenly during a land dispute.

What did the court decide?

The instant bail application is rejected.

Umesh Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

B.A. No. 5848 of 2020

Umesh Rai

….. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶7

---------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.

¶10

--------- 04/Dated: 13/10/2020

¶11

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Ranjan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will comply the previous order dated 07.09.2020 with regard to removal of the defects.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 10/2020, for the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(i), 376(3) I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner Umesh Rai is aged about 55 years and he belongs to the same family and under some confusion, F.I.R. has been lodged and petitioner has been made victim because of land dispute between the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and to that effect compromise petition has been filed vide Annexure -2 of the bail application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner, as such, petitioner, who is in custody since 06.03.2020, may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that victim is a minor girl, aged about 13-14 years, has been sexually assaulted by this petitioner, who is step maternal grandfather of the victim and initially F.I.R. could not be lodged because complainant went to the Rupnarayanpur Police Station, but police refused to lodge complaint for several dates, thereafter,

¶17

-2-

¶18

information was given to the Mihijam Police Station and F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that this is a case under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 3&6 of POCSO Act, these offences are not compoundable and as such, compromise petition may not be considered.

¶20

Learned counsel, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh has appeared on behalf of the informant and supported the contention of the petitioner and vide order dated 07.09.2020, he was given an opportunity to file Vakalatnama, but he has not filed the same nor the Vakalatnama has been filed as on today.

¶21

Under the aforesaid circumstances, his appearance is dispensed with.

¶22

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into gravity of offence as the victim is aged about 13-14 years, it is a case under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 3&6 of POCSO Act, as such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby rejected.

¶24

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶25

Sunil-Jay/

Umesh Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Rai 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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit Vs Sabita Devi

Ms Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Vice President Saikat Sarkar Vs Merry Soreng

Ms Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Vice President Saikat Sarkar Vs Merry Dungdung

Binay Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunny Verma Alias Raj Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akshay Kumar Alias Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand