Dismissed¶14

Akhilesh Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Sept 2024B.A./5680/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail REJECTED — POCSO/rape case, Garhwa district (Ranka P.S. Case No. 134/2023; POCSO Case No. 70/2023). Accused in custody since 01.09.2023; charge framed under Ss. 376(3), 377, 506 IPC and S. 6 POCSO Act. Defence relied on 3-day delay in FIR and discrepancy between F.I.R. and S. 164 Cr.P.C. statement; State relied on victim's supportive S. 164 statement, minority age (DOB 12.07.2011 per school certificate), heinous nature and risk of evidence tampering. Dismissed by Navneet Kumar, J., High Court of Jharkhand, 23 September 2024.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for grant of bail was rejected. ¶14

Akhilesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5680 of 2024

¶2

Akhilesh Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Jagu singh, resident of Village Sikath, P.O. Tamge Kalan, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶3

... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankay Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. --------

¶7

Order No. 06 / Dated 23^rd September, 2024

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused in connection with POCSO Case No.70 of 2023 arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04 of the POCSO Act, although charge-sheet has been submitted for the offence under Section 376(3), 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the gist of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner has committed rape and also unnatural offence with the victim who is said to be 14 years old. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is quite innocent in view of the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 3 days in the institution of the F.I.R. and further there is a major difference in the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also in the F.I.R as stated by the mother of the victim with respect to the time of the commission of the offence. Further it has been pointed out that the petitioner is in jail since 01.09.2023 and charge in this case has been framed and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has committed brutal offence by committing

¶12

rape several times and also to a minor victim who is aged about 12 years old. Further, it has been pointed out that the victim has categorically supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Further, it has been pointed out that the date of birth as recorded in school certificate is 12.07.2011 and charge in this case has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 376(3), 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and therefore possibility of tampering the evidence is very imminent in view of the fact that nature of offence which is very heinous in nature with a minor girl of about 12 years and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Having heard the parties, perused the records of this case including case diary and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

¶14

Under the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, it is not found just to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage of this case and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is hereby rejected.

¶15

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶16

Basant/S. Das

¶17

2 B.A. No.5680 of 2024

Akhilesh Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Singh 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

Natwa Tudu Alias Natuwa Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shishu Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Thakur Alias Bunty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Etwa Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ariful Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand

Buland Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand