Disposed

Rohit Kumar Alias Rohit Harijan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2022B.A./4826/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO and IPC, the petitioner claimed the victim was an adult married voluntarily, while prosecution alleged abducting a minor. The High Court rejected bail due to serious nature of offences, directed expeditious trial completion within six months, and allowed renewal of bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within six months. Liberty to renew bail prayer.

Rohit Kumar Alias Rohit Harijan Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4826 of 2022

¶2

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Harijan … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Azzeemuddin, Addl. P.P.

¶5

Order No.04 Dated- 22.08.2022

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with POCSO Case No.29 of 2022 arising out of Hirodih P.S. Case No. 102 of 2021 registered under sections 366-A of Indian Penal Code and section 17 of POCSO Act.

¶8

The FIR has been lodged by father of victim girl stating inter alia that on 22.12.2021 at about 4:00 pm, the victim girl is aged about 15 years went out of the house and did not return back. It is further alleged that present petitioner who is driver of four wheelers vehicle has developed intimacy with the victim girl and informant has strong suspicion that petitioner must have taken away his daughter.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that victim girl is major and she has voluntarily went with petitioner and both have solemnized marriage in a temple. It is further submitted that the victim girl is still residing at her matrimonial home. In the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., no allegations of rape or inducing the victim girl has been attributed against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and to remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or the informant. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2022 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the victim is a minor girl and her consent is immaterial for the alleged offence. Admittedly the petitioner was alluring the victim and has taken away the victim girl without consent

¶11

of lawful guardianship and solemnized marriage with the victim girl. From the status report of trial called from the court concerned shows that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 26.05.2022 and out of 14 charge-sheet witnesses, only one charge-sheet witness has been examined as yet. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record against the petitioner and also in view of the serious offences committed by petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at the present stage of proceeding. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶13

However, learned trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if so advised.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

Rohit Kumar Alias Rohit Harijan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Alias Rohit Harijan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birbal Kuma Gupta Alias Birbal Kumar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siraj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Kumar Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ekram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand