The High Court rejected the petitioners' bail application in a POCSO and rape case involving a minor victim. The court found direct allegations against the accused and refused bail at the initial stage.
Bail prayer rejected; trial to proceed.
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. 2857 of 2022
The State of Jharkhand …………
Versus Opp. Party
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K.Vashistha, A.P.P.
2/23.03.2022 Defect, pointed out by the office, are hereby ignored for the present.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the impugned order.
The petitioners are accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act, in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No. 109 of 2021, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has already been taken. He further submits that it is surprising that the victim was being taken from a crowded place and thereafter, rape was committed, but no one has seen this petitioner taking the victim. He further submits that the medical evidence does not support the factum of rape.
After going through the FIR and the impugned order, I find that there is direct allegation against both these petitioners. The allegation against petitioner no. 1 is of committing rape and the allegation against petitioner no. 2 is that he forcibly taken the victim to the place where petitioner no. 1 was present, who committed rape upon her.
Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the victim is aged about 16 years, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial.
The petitioners, if so advised, may renew their prayer for bail after examination of the victim during trial.
( Ananda Sen, J )
Mukund/-cp.3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.
Whether the nature of the offense and age of the victim warrant withdrawal of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jugal Kumar Chouhan @ Yugal Kishor Kumar
Sikandar Chouhan @ Sakendra Chauhan
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
