Dismissed¶14

Premkant Lohra Alias Prem Kant Lohra Alias Prem Kumar Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2024B.A./4274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; POCSO Case No.24 of 2023; Ichagarh P.S. Case No.76 of 2023; Sections 376 AB/506 IPC; Sections 4 and 8 POCSO Act; rape of 11-year-old girl; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim; delay in FIR explained in FIR itself; medical examination 8 days after occurrence, no bearing; corroboration by mother Akali Lohra, father Rajendra Lohra, witness Chhutun Lohra; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Single Bench (Subhash Chand, J.); B.A. No.4274 of 2024; decided 21.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

The delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands explained by the informant in the F.I.R. itself, answering the defence plea of one week's delay. ¶13

Premkant Lohra Alias Prem Kant Lohra Alias… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in POCSO Case No.24 of 2023 (Ichagarh P.S. Case No.76 of 2023) under Sections 376 AB/506 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act for the alleged rape of an 11-year-old girl, should be released on bail.

¶10

Court's answer

The delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands explained by the informant in the F.I.R. itself, answering the defence plea of one week's delay.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The age of the victim is shown as 11 years in the F.I.R. and, as per medical evidence, 11 to 12 years.

¶13

Key takeaways

The victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. categorically states the mode of committing rape upon her.ratio¶13
The victim's statement is corroborated by her mother Akali Lohra (to whom she disclosed the occurrence), her father Rajendra Lohra, and one more independent witness, Chhutun Lohra.ratio¶13
The medical examination of the victim was conducted 8 days after the occurrence, on 24th September, 2023; as such, the medical evidence has no bearing on the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application (B.A. No.4274 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) rejected by Subhash Chand, J. (order dated 21.08.2024). Petitioner Premkant Lohra @ Prem Kant Lohara @ Prem Kumar Lohra sought bail in POCSO Case No.24 of 2023, arising out of Ichagarh P.S. Case No.76 of 2023, registered under Sections 376 AB/506 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella; the F.I.R. lodged by the victim's father alleges the petitioner took away his 11-year-old daughter and committed rape upon her by extending threat. Rejecting bail, the Court held: (i) the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is explained by the informant in the F.I.R. itself; (ii) the victim's age is 11 years per the F.I.R. and 11 to 12 years per medical evidence; (iii) her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement categorically states the mode of committing rape and is corroborated by her mother Akali Lohra, her father Rajendra Lohra and independent witness Chhutun Lohra; and (iv) the medical examination was conducted 8 days after the occurrence (24th September, 2023), so the medical evidence has no bearing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4274 of 2024

¶2

Premkant Lohra @ Prem Kant Lohara @ Prem Kumar Lohra aged about 33 years son of Avinash Lohra resident of village Choga, Post Ichagarh, Police Station Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharsawan ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. --------

¶8

07/21.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for

¶9

the State.

¶10

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with prayer to release on bail in connection with POCSO Case No.24 of 2023 arising out of Ichagarh P.S. Case No.76 of 2023 registered under Sections 376 AB/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella.

¶11

The F.I.R. of this case was lodged against the petitioner Prem Kumar Lohra in which the allegations are made by the father of the victim that his 11 years old daughter was studying in Class-VI in Sodo School. On 16^th September, 2023 at 8 o’ clock in night Premkant Lohra came to his house and took away his daughter. At 9 o’ clock, he brought back his daughter at home and she while weeping told that Premkant Lohra had committed rape upon her by extending threat and he also threatened not to disclose any one in regard to the occurrence otherwise her family would be eliminated. The informant came to know in regard to this occurrence from his wife and on account of being defamed in the society he kept mum. Ultimately this F.I.R. was lodged.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay of one week in lodging the F.I.R. and the prosecution case is not corroborated with the medical evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 23^rd September, 2023. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

The delay in lodging the F.I.R. is explained by the informant in the F.I.R. itself. In F.I.R., the age of victim is shown 11 years and as per medical evidence her age is 11 to 12 years. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the victim has categorically stated the mode of committing rape upon her. The said statement of the victim is also corroborated with the statement of her mother Akali Lohra to whom she had told her woe-tell and with the statement of her father Rajendra Lohra and also one more independent witness, namely, Chhutun Lohra. So far as medical examination report of the victim is concerned, the medical examination was conducted after 8 days of the occurrence on 24^th September, 2023. As such, the medical evidence has no bearing.

¶14

In view of the submissions made and materials on record, the bail application of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶15

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶16

Rohit

¶17

-2-

Premkant Lohra Alias Prem Kant Lohra Alias Prem Kumar Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premkant Lohra Alias Prem Kant Lohra Alias Prem Kumar Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vicky Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Roshan Kumar Alias Roshan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaura Karwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand