Dismissed

Rahul Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Aug 2022A.B.A./3607/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Jharkhand High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a POCSO Act case involving rape of a minor. The court refused bail due to the heinous nature of the charge and directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks.

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3607 of 2022

¶3

Rahul Kumar …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

…… Opposite party

¶7

----- -----

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

¶11

Order No.03/ Dated:12.08.2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021 instituted under Sections 346, 366-A, 323, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum- Special Judge POCSO Act, Hazaribag, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

As per F.I.R. the victim on 10.04.2019 at night 9 to 10 p.m. had gone outside to meet the call of nature, during which the petitioner has committed rape on her and intimidated her.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case under conspiracy and with ulterior motive. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶17

There is direct allegation against the petitioner for committing rape with the minor girl(prosecturix) which is serious and heinous in nature and severely punishable.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials available on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the anticipatory bail is hereby, rejected.

¶19

Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶20

In case, petitioner surrenders before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner without being prejudiced by this order.

¶21

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶22

R.K

Rahul Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pravesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hanif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhutu Mahato Alias Chhutu Lal Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Bahadur Alias Golu Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Virendra Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishor Yadav Alias Nand Kishor Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand