Application for regular bail rejected in a special POCSO case alleging sexual offence under IPC 376(3) and POCSO Act. Court noted medical evidence and victim statement, finding no ground to enlarge bail.
Bail application rejected; petitioner remains in custody.
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.4662 of 2020
Bipin Paswan @ Rajesh Oraon @ Bipin Kumar Paswan
Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P.
---
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.
---
04/22.03.2021: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Garu P.S. Case No.02 of 2020 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No.13 of 2020, registered for the offence under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Latehar.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2020 and the investigation is complete. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial. Further, the alleged incident has taken place on 15.09.2019 while the FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2020 and there is no material available on record, and as such, no case is made out against this petitioner. Further, there is land dispute between the parties and this is the reason for false implication of the petitioner in this case. On the basis of above facts, the prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim minor girl who is the sister-inlaw of the accused has been sexually exploited resulted in pregnancy which is supported by the medical evidence. The victim-girl has supported this fact in her statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and as such, this petitioner does not deserve bail.
2
From perusal of the records, it appears that there is a direct and specific allegation against this petitioner by his minor sister-in-law which is also supported by the medical evidence. Further, the allegation has been supported by the victim minor girl in her statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also.
Considering the material available on record and the argument of the parties, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves regular bail in a case alleging POCSO offences supported by medical evidence and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bipin Paswan @ Rajesh Oraon @ Bipin Kumar Paswan
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
