In a bail application, the respondent's counsel claimed ignorance of the case status. The Court refused interference with the impugned rejection, citing the accused's identification in a Test Identification Parade. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
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
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1007 of 2019
--Pramod Kumar Sao @ Pramod Kumar Saw … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … … 2. Suganti Tudu Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
I.A. No. 10125 of 2019
05/07.01.2020 Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of five days in filing the appeal.
Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of five days in preferring the appeal is, hereby, condoned.
I.A. No. 10125 of 2019 stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1007 of 2019
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in Tisri P. S. Case No. 61 of 2018 by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It appears from the allegation that two persons had committed rape upon the victim who is aged about fifteen years. In the Test Identification Parade, the appellant was identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime. It also appears that in course of trial, five prosecution witnesses have been examined which appears from the impugned order dated 13.06.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant is unaware about the present status
of the case.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the appellant has been identified in the Test Identification Parade and, therefore, there being a direct allegation against the present appellant, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in Tisri P. S. Case No. 61 of 2018.
This application, therefore, stands dismissed.
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should condone a delay of five days in filing a criminal appeal.
Pramod Kumar Sao @ Pramod Kumar Saw
The State of Jharkhand
Suganti Tudu
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
