High Court of Jharkhand rejected bail in a POCSO rape case, holding that mental illness diagnosed post-crime and lack of penetration evidence do not negate the serious nature of the charge against a minor.
Bail application rejected; petitioner to remain 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.6694 of 2020
Lal Mahato … … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, 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.
---
08/22.03.2021: 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 POCSO Case No.32 of 2019 arising out of Kharsawan P.S. Case No.17 of 2019, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge I, at Seraikella.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.20219 and the allegation of rape does not find any support from the medical evidence as no sign of penetration has been found. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is suffering from mental disease for which he has been admitted in RINPAS, Ranchi from 23.05.2019 to 16.12.2019 and he has been diagnosed as “Unspecified Non-Organic Psychosis”. 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 minor girl aged about thirteen years has been sexually assaulted by this accused who is aged about 35 years. Further, the incident has taken place on 19.04.2019 and the petitioner has complained regarding mental health after a month and there is no evidence of prior suffering of any mental illness of this petitioner. Further, the allegation has been supported by the statement of the victim
2
(minor girl) recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and as such, the petitioner does not deserve bail.
From perusal of the records and considering the arguments of the parties, it appears that the victim (minor girl) has made the allegation of sexual assault against this petitioner. The definition of penetration does not require real penetration and mere touch is enough. So far as the mental illness of the petitioner is concerned, there is no evidence regarding the mental illness at the time of the commission of rape.
In view of material available on record and the nature of crime, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the allegation of sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act and IPC Section 376.
Whether the petitioner’s diagnosed unspecified non-organic psychosis and lack of recent medical evidence regarding penetration are sufficient grounds for bail.
Whether mere allegation of sexual assault without proof of mental illness at the time of the crime warrants denying bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lal Mahato
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
