This judgment rejects the petitioner's bail application in a POCSO case involving enticement and rape. The court denied bail citing the serious nature of allegations and the petitioner's breach of prior conditions, including failure to deposit victim compensation.
Bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
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. 239 of 2022
Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Kumar Das
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.03 Dated- 11.03.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Devipur P.S. Case No.16 of 2021, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 17(A) of 2021 registered under sections 363/ 366A/ 376 (1) /34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner enticed away the minor victim girl for solemnization of her marriage with the co-accused – Rahul Kumar. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused –Rahul Kumar and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied the co-accused persons in taking the victim along with the co-accused persons in a motorcycle forcibly to Madhupur from her village. It is next submitted that earlier the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail upon his undertaking to deposit a demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation drawn in favour of the informant. It is further submitted that the co-accused person has already been admitted to bail. 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 the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail upon his undertaking to deposit a demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation
drawn in favour of the informant but he has not abide by the said order and in view of the serious nature of allegation, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, to avoid serving out the severe sentence in case of his conviction which is imminent, as there is ample material in the record to ensure his conviction more so because of the conduct of the petitioner in not complying with the order of this court. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner facing charges under the POCSO Act and IPC.
Whether the petitioner's failure to comply with previous conditions precludes bail eligibility.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Kumar Das
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
