Dismissed

Dilip Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Sept 2024B.A./7298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Renewed regular bail application by an accused in a Special POCSO case under Sections 366(A) and 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Bail was rejected considering the age of the girl, with a direction to the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within three months.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial, preferably within three months.

Dilip Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No.7298 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Dilip Prajapati aged about 21 years, son of Late Ramdeo Prajapati, resident of village Jai Nagar Kumhar Toi, P.O. + P.S. – Patratu, District-Ramgarh.

¶5

…. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Pratik Sen, Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. ----

¶12

03/Dated: 20^th September, 2024

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

2. The applicant who is in custody since 18.08.2023 has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No.35 of 2023 corresponding to Patratu P.S. Case No.152 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 366(A) & 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh.

¶15

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.

¶16

4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that there is no cogent material against this applicant. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶18

6. Considering the age of the girl, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected once again.

¶19

7. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶20

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶21

Amar/Uploaded

Dilip Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Kumar Alias Nanhe Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Champa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lavkush Alias Lokush Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ragda Murmu Vs State of Jharkhand

Shamshad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mojahir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand