Hearing a bail petition in a POCSO and IPC case involving kidnapping of minors, the High Court rejected the prayer for bail due to the serious nature of allegations. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Prayer for bail rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within six months.
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. 455 of 2021
Mobarak Ansari … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mamta Kumari … Opposite Parties ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Dey, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 05.02.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Birni P.S. Case No.181 of 2020 registered under sections 341/323/354/509/366A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner kidnapped the minor victim girls and outraged their modesty. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in fact the father of one of the victim has taken the motorcycle of the petitioner and in this respect, the father of the petitioner instituted Birni P.S. Case No. 182 of 2020 and to save his skin, the father of the victim has got instituted this false case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that two of the minor victim girls have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner as well as the co-accused in the kidnapping of the minor victim girls and to
make out a false defence, the father of the petitioner has also instituted case against the father of the victim also. It is then submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the minor victim girls and outraging their modesty, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner accused of kidnapping minor victims and outraging modesty should be granted bail.
Whether the file be remanded back to the trial court for expeditious trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None cited in textReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mobarak Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Mamta Kumari
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
