Allowed

Sumeet Herenj v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020B.A./7723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO Act and IPC offences, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed bail after verifying that no victim alleged involvement of the petitioner in the crime based on their examination reports.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties of like amount each, subject to specific conditions including medical check-up and appearance before trial court.

Sumeet Herenj Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

B.A. No. 7723 of 2020

¶3

Sumeet Herenj ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.

¶7

--------- 02/Dated: 06/10/2020

¶8

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nivedita Kundu.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 9 (i) & (ii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 25.09.2020, have not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and has prayed that the bail application may be heard, as it is a regular bail application of the petitioner, who is in custody since 10.04.2020.

¶10

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the instant bail application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) 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 defect(s).

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Karra P.S. Case No. 22/2020 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 11/2020, for the offence registered under Sections 363 / 366A / 376 (DA) I.P.C. and Sections 4 / 6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an inordinate delay of eight days, the alleged date of occurrence is 02.04.2020 whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 10.04.2020 against nine accused persons including petitioner, who is at Sl. No.7. It is alleged that five girls were sitting and were talking, then nine persons went there Ranjan and Jeevan tried to caught hold of one victim, Manohar caught hold of another victim, but so far petitioner

¶14

-2-

¶15

is concerned, there is no specific allegation of any overact against the petitioner, nor has any criminal antecedent, as such, he may be enlarged on bail as he is in custody since 10.04.2020.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that out of five girls, three girls have fled away, the statement of two girls have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 & 3. From perusal of the same, it appears that no allegation has been made against the petitioner, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and after verifying from the Officer-in-charge of Karra Police station has categorically stated that out of five girls only two girls have been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and it is true that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. none of the victims have alleged anything against the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances of the case, both victims have not taken name of this petitioner as a person, who committed any offence with them, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petitioner 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 in connection with Karra P.S. Case No. 22/2020 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 11/2020 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge-cum-POCSO Judge, Khunti on the following conditions:

¶19

(i) One of the bailors shall be the deponent / pairvikar of the present case namely, Chamin Mundain, wife of Juna Munda, resident of Village - Bingaon, P.O. - Bingaon, P.S. - Karra, District – Khunti, who has furnished photocopy of her UID Card bearing number 9840 4299 5266 before this Court in the bail application.

¶20

Office is directed to send the photocopy of UID Card bearing no. 9840 4299 5266 of deponent alongwith this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor .

¶21

-3-

¶22

(ii) Another bailor shall be father / mother / brother / sister of the petitioner.

¶23

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

¶24

(iv) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check-up.

¶25

(v) The Civil Surgeon, Khunti is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if he is infected with corona virus, he shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. (vi) The petitioner shall follow all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as presently Country is passing through pandemic of Covid-19.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶27

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶28

Sunil-Jay/

Sumeet Herenj v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumeet Herenj 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

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

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsher Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guddu Singh Alias Nikhil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand