Dismissed¶15

Pramod Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2025B.A./3926/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi [2025:JHHC:14950]; B.A. No.3926 of 2025; Pramod Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand; bail application rejected; POCSO Act, 2012 Sections 10/18; Special POCSO Case No.13 of 2025; Kanke P.S. Case No.265 of 2024; aggravated sexual assault; minor victim boy aged four years; custody since 15.01.2025; Order No.02 dated 10-06-2025; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; advocates Prashant Kr. Shrivastava and Someshwar Roy (Addl.P.P).

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, the Court held that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. ¶15

Pramod Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:JHHC:14950] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3926 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Pramod Pandey, (aged about 48 years), s/o-Lal Babu Pandey, resident of Road No. 1, Near Kishore Ganj, Near Anand Nagar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P ------

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 10-06-2025

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Special POCSO Case No.13 of 2025 arising out of Kanke P.S. Case No.265 of 2024 registered under Section 10/18 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed aggravated sexual assault upon the minor victim boy aged four years and also attempted to commit the offences punishable under the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-17 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.01.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

¶15

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Pramod Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Pandey 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

Reyaz Ansari Alias Sahadat Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khalil Miyan Alias Khalil Mia Alias Kalil Miya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Deepak Kumar Mitra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Alias Ashok Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Mahto Alias Dileep Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand