Petitioner seeking bail in case involving alleged offence against a minor; court rejected bail due to serious nature of offence pending examination of five other witnesses.
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 (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
BA No. 7268 of 2022
Anand Minj … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ------For the Petitioner : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. B.N.Ojha, APP
-------- Order No.04/Dated: 16th September, 2022
When the matter is called out, both the learned counsels have
appeared.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of occurrence is 06.01.2022 and the FIR has been registered on 19.01.2022 after delay of about thirteen days which has not been explained at all. She further submits that there is variation in the FIR and in the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. as there is inconsistency regarding threat extended to the victim by the petitioner. She further stated that during investigation no independent witness has been examined. Moreover, not even Bipin Horo in whose house Chhathi party was going on has been examined. She has stated that victim has been examined as PW-1 and in her deposition she has stated that she informed her friend about the alleged occurrence but nothing in this regard has come in the FIR or her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that a serious offence has been committed upon a minor girl aged about 13 years. Moreover, the inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are minor in nature and also now only one witness has been examined and rest five witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, the petitioner may not be released on bail.
Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
KNR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Anand Minj
The State of Jharkhand
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
