The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal against the rejection of his regular bail application in a POCSO case arising under the National Investigation Agency Act, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision given the severity of allegations.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; no bail was granted.
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.467 of 2023
Babu Ram Marandi … … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondents
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-----For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
Order No. 03 : Dated 20th April, 2023
I.A. No.3193 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 329 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.
Heard parties.
Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 329 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A. No. 3657 of 2023 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.467 of 2023
The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj in POCSO Case No.32 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with the alleged commission of offence
under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and nothing specific has come against him but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed in POCSO Case No.32 of 2019.
While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the nature of allegation which has been levelled against the appellant has been found to be correct by the investigating agency basis upon which the charge has been submitted against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
It has further been submitted that the statement of the victim has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who has fully corroborated the prosecution version and if on that premise the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail has been rejected, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order, it is evident that the victim girl, the minor, was taken to Delhi on the pretext of providing job to her and when it was reported to
the police, the matter has been investigated and in course of investigation the complicity of the appellant in commission of offence under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been surfaced basis upon which the chargesheet has been submitted.
Further, the victim has also given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the allegation of her taking away and even establishment of physical relationship forcefully by the appellant.
It further appears from the impugned order that charge in the case has been framed against the accused on 08.12.2022.
Considering the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the nature of allegation levelled against the appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the appellant
through Jail Superintendent.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Birendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order rejecting the regular bail application in a POCSO case involving severe allegations against the appellant.
Whether the grave nature of the charges, corroborated by the victim's statement, warrants the grant of bail to the accused.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Babu Ram Marandi
The State of Jharkhand
Sujit Narayan Prasad
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
