Allowed

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020B.A./7717/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted to Pintu Saw charged with rape under IPC 376. Court allowed bail despite procedural defects, citing inordinate custody delay, mutual counter-cases, victim's denial of medical test, and lack of corroborating evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs. 20,000 bond with two sureties on conditions including medical check-up and appearance before trial court.

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]

¶2

B.A. No. 7717 of 2020

¶3

…....

¶4

Pintu Saw @ Pintu Kumar Saw …… Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶6

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

¶7

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P -----

¶8

02/Dated: 06/10/2020:

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are defect nos.9(i) and 9(ii) in the bail application as pointed out by the stamp reporter but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard as it is a regular bail application in which petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2020.

¶10

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merits but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts.

¶11

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defects.

¶12

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav and learned counsel for the State, Ms. Nehala Sharmin.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.17 of 2019, (S.T. No.109 of 2020), for the offence registered under Sections 376 and 354B IPC but cognizance is taken on 376 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that alleged date of occurrence is 29.10.2018 alleging therein that petitioner along with Dhiraj Sao and Sikander Sao have committed rape upon the informant/complainant while she has gone to the forest for grazing the cattle.

¶15

The complainant/informant filed Complaint Case No.2057 of 2018 on 08.11.2018 for an occurrence dated 29.10.2018, which was sent to Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. thus present case has been beyond against the petitioner as Dhanwar P.S. Case No.17 of 2019.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is relevant to state here that Kali Devi has filed Complaint Case No.2075 of 2018, which was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed against the

¶17

-2-

¶18

husband of the present complainant/informant and sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, Dhanwar P.S. Case No.80 of 2019 has been instituted in which the husband of the informant/complaint has been made accused.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that both the cases i.e. case and counter case arising out of complaint cases between the parties, but in the present case the victim has refused for medical examination, which would be apparent from para 30 of the case diary, as such, petitioner who has land dispute and falsely been implicated because of village politics.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2020, as such, he may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is case and counter case both arising out of complaint case and it is true that victim has denied the medical test as apparent from para 30 of the case diary, but she has further stated that one Kusum Devi has supported the case of the prosecution, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on regular bail.

¶22

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as both the cases are arising out of complaint case and husband of the present informant is accused in the counter case and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the victim has refused the medical examination and considering the period of custody of the petitioner from i.e. 30.05.2020, this Court is inclined to grant Bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner (Pintu Saw @ Pintu Kumar Saw), is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.17 of 2019, (S.T. No.109 of 2020) on the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case namely, Sourav Kumar, S/o Manoj Kumar R/o Village- Karso, P.O.& P.S.- Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.2428 1839 7616 before this Court in the bail application.

¶24

Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing No. 2428 1839 7616 of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.

¶25

(ii) Another bailor shall be mother/father/brother/sister/son.

¶26

( iii ) Petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court

¶27

-3-

¶28

till conclusion of the trial.

¶29

(iv) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up. (v) The Civil Surgeon, Giridih is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if require, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶30

(vi) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19.

¶31

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶32

Sandeep/R.S.

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw 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

Birendra Kumar Alias Mangar Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Afjal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsher Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guddu Singh Alias Nikhil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Irfan Vs the State of Jharkhand