Dismissed¶12

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024B.A./4751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand; bail application rejected; Sanatan Mahato @ Jhantu Mahato vs State of Jharkhand; B.A. No.4751 of 2024; Dumaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 2023; Sections 363/366A Indian Penal Code; kidnapping/enticement of minor girl; love affair elopement; judicial custody since 07.02.2024; charge-sheet submitted charge not framed; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghatsila; trial to conclude within six months; renewal of bail prayer; Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; order dated 22.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; however, petitioner may renew his bail prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded within that period, and the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months. ¶12

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.4751 of 2024

¶3

Sanatan Mahato @ Jhantu Mahato … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mohua Palit, Addl. P.P.

¶6

Order No.06/Dated- 22.08.2024

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Dumaria P.S. Case No. 32 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila.

¶9

As per FIR, it is alleged that on 07.11.2023, while informant was sleeping with his entire family members after having meal, his wife woke up at 10:30 P.M. and found that his daughter (victim) was not present in her room. Thereafter, the informant inquired the matter from villagers and neighbours and came to know that the petitioner has allured his minor daughter and eloped with him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner and victim are in love affair due to which the victim of her own free will and volition accompanied the petitioner to marry him. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial Custody since 07.02.2024 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is sufficient material showing the complicity of petitioner in the alleged crime. Considering the gravity of offence and severity of punishment, petitioner does not deserve bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and there is direct allegation of enticing a minor girl and having sexual relationship with her. At the present stage though charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, however, charge has not been framed. Therefore, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected.

¶13

The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months otherwise petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail application after the aforesaid period.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Sachin

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Mahato Alias Jhantu Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Mani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Kalim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sahil Gagrai Alias Ajay Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand