Allowed

Pintu Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2023B.A./310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In regular bail applications by Rohit Uraon and Pintu Ganjhu accused of gang rape under POCSO and IPC, the single-judge bench of Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Kumar inclined to grant bail. Though the applicants assisted by holding the victim, the rape role was assigned to co-accused. Bail was granted with a bond and conditions for document submission and contact availability.

What did the court decide?

Relieved the applicants Rohit Uraon and Pintu Ganjhu on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of 10,000/- each with two sureties of 10,000/- each.

Pintu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.12002 of 2022

¶3

Rohit Uraon …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party With B.A. No.310 of 2023

¶4

Pintu Ganjhu …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P ---------

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶6

05/Dated: 23rd March, 2023

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the State.

¶8

2. The applicant namely, Rohit Uraon is in custody since 26.05.2022, whereas the applicant namely, Pintu Ganjhu is in custody since 12.05.2022 and they have approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.46 of 2022, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.22 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 376(1)/ 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/ 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶9

3. It appears that these applicants have been made accused for committing gang rape upon the informant.

¶10

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his part.

¶11

Innocence of the applicants has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the F.I.R of this case was lodged against six named accused including the applicants with the allegation that on 11.05.2022 the informant/victim had gone to the house of marriage ceremony wherein her father was cooking food. At the same time, all the named accused came to her house at 3:20 a.m. and they forcibly took her away towards bush near river and Kariman Gaunjhu and Mukesh Gaunjhu raped her and all the rest were holding her legs and hands as well. It has further been submitted that, as per the F.I.R allegations, victim had assigned role of committing rape to Kariman Gaunjhu and Mukesh Gaunjhu and remaining accused including the applicants had been attributed

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

role of catching hold of her. The victim also not assigned any role to the applicants committing rape and their medical evidence also does not support the same. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶14

5. On the other hand Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that as per the medical evidence, age of the victim has been assessed between 14 to 15 years. Victim herself lodged the F.I.R. Though the role of committing rape has been assigned to accused Kariman Gaunjhu and Mukesh Gaunjhu yet the applicants along with other named accused also caught hold of her and the statement of victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement, victim has stated that all the named accused intruded in her house and also made attempt to sexually assault her. Subsequently all took her towards bush near river. Kariman Gaunjhu and Mukesh Gaunjhu both committed rape upon her as well. Other co-accused assisted them. Medical report also supports the prosecution version.

¶15

6. Considering the fact that the role of committing rape upon the victim has been assigned to Kariman Gaunjhu and Mukesh Gaunjhu, I am inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to be released on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Latehar in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.46 of 2022, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.22 of 2022, on the condition that the applicants will submit selfattested photocopy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile number before the learned court below which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

¶16

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶17

Chandan/-

Pintu Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Ganjhu 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

Tapeshwar Kahar Alias Tapeshwar Chandravanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Bagti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sk Ajharruddin Alias Suru Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sourav Kumar Alias Sourav Yadav Alias Sahil Alias Golu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhram Oraon Alias Guddu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand