Petitioners accused in a POCSO gang rape case sought bail after trial commencement. The victim and her mother, examined as witnesses, did not implicate them; only a medical report opined minority. The court enlarged them on bail with sureties and attendance conditions.
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 B.A. No. 5314 of 2024
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Pranabesh Kr. Paul, Advocate For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P.
Order No. 07 / Dated 20th September, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
petitioners that no offence under the POCSO Act has been substantiated by the informant who has wholly falsified the case of the prosecution and therefore these petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S. Das
2 B.A. No.5314 of 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners accused under Sections 366(A), 376(D) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act should be enlarged on bail given trial-stage testimony not implicating them.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shishu Hembram
Sanjit Soren
Chhotelal Murmu
State of Jharkhand
Navneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
