Allowed

Aziz Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2021B.A./320/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 366 and 376(D) IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail to an elderly petitioner charged post-trial charge. The court emphasized the petitioner's name was absent from the initial FIR and victim statement, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and submitting Aadhar card and mobile number details to the Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi.

Aziz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.320 of 2021 Aziz Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶4

--- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Adv. ---

¶5

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.

¶6

---

¶7

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.

¶8

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, for the offence under Sections366 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2020 and he has already been charged by the Sessions Court. The petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial. The petitioner is aged about 70 years. 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, no evidence has been found against fourth person named in statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 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.

¶10

¶11

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.

¶12

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, 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.

¶13

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶14

Amar/-

Aziz Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aziz Ansari 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

Kundan Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ratan Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jafir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abinash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Lohar Alias Vatta Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand