Dismissed¶13

Santosh Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2024B.A./4742/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; B.A. No. 4742 of 2024; Santosh Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand; Ambuj Nath, J.; decided 09.08.2024; Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2023; Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023; Section 376 IPC; Sections 4 & 8 POCSO Act; earlier bail rejected in B.A. No. 8122 of 2023 (11.10.2023); case and counter case; charge framed; two witnesses examined; victim's mother hostile witness; victim married and left place of occurrence; coercive steps to secure victim's attendance and record statement; six-month window to renew bail prayer; Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge POCSO Ramgarh.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of the allegation, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly rejected his prayer for bail at this stage.

Santosh Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2023 facing charges under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act, should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the allegation, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly rejected his prayer for bail at this stage.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The learned court below was directed to take all coercive steps to secure the attendance of the victim and record her statement.

¶14

Key takeaways

If the statement of the victim is not recorded within six months from the date of this order, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Rejected — High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (B.A. No. 4742 of 2024, decided 09.08.2024, Ambuj Nath, J.): Santosh Kumar Mahto, accused in Special POCSO Case No. 15 of 2023 arising out of Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023 for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act, pending before Sri Shesh Nath Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ramgarh, whose earlier bail prayer had been rejected in B.A. No. 8122 of 2023 (order dated 11.10.2023), again sought bail. Counsel submitted that there is a case and counter case between the parties both registered under Section 376 IPC, that the charge stands framed with two witnesses examined and the victim's mother turned hostile, and that the victim has married and left the place of occurrence so her statement could not be recorded. Considering the nature of the allegation, the Court rejected the prayer for bail at this stage, directed the court below to take all coercive steps to secure the victim's attendance and record her statement, and made it clear that if the victim's statement is not recorded within six months from the date of the order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 4742 of 2024

¶3

Santosh Kumar Mahto, S/o Rajnarayan Mahto, resident of village- Lolo, P.O.Gandkey, P.S.- Rajrappa, District – Ramgarh. … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶6

For the Petitioner	----- : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ---

¶7

04/09.08.2024

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Special POCSO Case No.15 of 2023 arising out of Ramgarh (Mahila) P.S. Case No.05 of 2023, for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of Sri Shesh Nath Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ramgarh.

¶10

Bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court in B.A No.8122 of 2023 by order dated 11.10.2023.

¶11

The petitioner is said to have raped 15 years old victim girl.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is case and counter case between the parties both registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that the charge has been framed in this case and two witnesses have been examined and mother of the victim has turned hostile. It was further submitted that the victim has married and she has left her present place of occurrence and as such, her statement could not be recorded.

¶13

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected at this stage.

¶14

Learned court below shall take all coercive steps to secure the attendance of victim and record her statement.

¶15

It is, however, made clear that if the statement of the victim is not recorded within six months from the date of this order, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail.

¶16

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶17

Jay/-

Santosh Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Mahto 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

Bindhyachal Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Refroms and Rajbhasha

Ramji Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Saket Kumar Vs the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation through Its Commissioner

Haroon Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ladura Hessa Alias Kaira Hessa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manjit Pardi Vs the State of Jharkhand