High CourtsSingle Bench

Bijay Nayak vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 JH CK 0154

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 366(A) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6, 8, 10 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11047 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 399 words

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the

lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the

present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Goilkera P.S. case no. 20 of 2019 (Spl. (POCSO) case no. 40 of 2019) registered under

sections 366 (A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6, 8, 10 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner enticed away the minor victim girl to

marry her. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, has stated that the petitioner was trying to do the wrong

acts with the victim but she has improvised her statement in the court as, she deposed in her examination as a witness in the court that the petitioner

established physical relationship with her. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the medical examination of the victim, no

sign or no mark of violence nor any foreign particle was found on the private part of the victim nor any tenderness, bleeding or spermatozoa was

found. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that examination of the witnesses is almost over and the petitioner has been in jail

custody since 25.08.2019 as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the bail application and the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the

case hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-1, Chaibasa in connection with Goilkera P.S. case no. 20 of 2019 (Spl. (POCSO) case no. 40 of 2019) subject to the condition that the

petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case.