This court allowed an interim application condoning a 22-day delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, dismissing the rejection of bail, the High Court granted bail to the appellant, who is accused of allegedly enticing the daughter of an informant.
Bail granted with bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of the like amount each.
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 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2022
Shankar Mahto ... … Appellant
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
---------
09/14.12.2022 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
I.A. No. 11005 of 2022
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State.
This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal.
Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal is, hereby, condoned.
I.A. No. 11005 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 984 of 2022
This appeal is directed against order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I – cum Spl – Judge – POCSO, Lohardaga in M.C.A. No. 31 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. The appellant is an accused in connection in Lohardaga SC/ST P. S. Case No. 10 of 2021.
It has been alleged that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the appellant.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim was a major and she had willingly eloped with the appellant and had gone to various places as per her statement under Section 161 CrPC. Learned counsel has also stated that from the 164 Cr.P.C. statement it appears that there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since 20.01.2022.
-2-
Learned P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
On consideration of the statements of the victim, we while setting aside the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in M.C.A. No. 31 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I – cum Spl – Judge – POCSO, Lohardaga, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga, in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P. S. Case No. 10 of 2021, corresponding to MCA No. 31 of 2022.
This appeal stands allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Umesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Whether the bail application by the appellant, accused in an SC/ST case alleging enticement of a major girl, should be allowed.
Shankar Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Dhanesh Lohra
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
