In a bail application under sections 366 and 376(D) IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court of Jharkhand released the petitioner on bail considering his name was added during trial despite initial omission from the FIR and victim statement.
The petitioner was released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.
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
B.A. No.306 of 2021
Moin Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Adv. ---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
03/04.03.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Narkopi P.S. Case No.21 of 2018 corresponding to POCSO Case No.106 of 2018(S), for the offence under Sections366 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2020. The petitioner has already been charged by the Sessions Court and is ready to co-operate in the trial. It has been submitted that initially the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on the basis of information given by the victim-girl as the three persons had committed the crime. This petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Thereafter, she has given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against four persons and again the name of this petitioner was missing. The police has filed the charge-sheet against three persons only who have been named in the FIR and as, no evidence has been found against the fourth person. The name of this petitioner has surfaced during trial. On that basis this petitioner has been issued notice under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and has been charged. On the above facts, prayer for bail has been made giving undertaking that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial.
2
On the other hand, counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the petitioner is a veteran criminal and there are so many criminal antecedents against him. The prosecutrix and her family members are afraid that they may be harmed if the petitioner is released from the custody. On the basis of above facts, the petitioner does not deserve bail.
Considering the material available on record and the fact that the name of the petitioner has not been taken at the very first stage by the prosecutrix either in the FIR or in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Narkopi P.S. Case No.21 of 2018 corresponding to POCSO Case No.106 of 2018(S), subject to condition that the petitioner will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner who was subsequently added during trial despite initial omission in FIR and statement.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Moin Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
