High CourtsSingle Bench

Dinesh Soren vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 7 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 JH CK 0086

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 312, 313, 323, 376, 493, 504 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9274 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

19 paragraphs · 383 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 Budhai P.s. case no. 07 of 2020 corresponding to POCSO case no. 13 of 2020 instituted

under sections 376, 493, 312, 313, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner committed rape upon the

victim on the pretext of marriage but later on the parents of the petitioner agreed to accept the victim, who is the daughter of the informant, as their

daughter in law by getting the marriage solemnized according to Santhali custom and took the victim with them but caused miscarriage of her. It is

then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of the court to the statement of

the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim used to live in the house of the petitioner and

lastly also, the petitioner came to take her but she did not go to his house. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

has been in jail custody since 28.08.2020 as mentioned in the paragraph 18 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 regular 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, III, Deoghar cum Special Judge, POCSO in connection with Budhai P.S. case no. 07 of 2020 subject to the condition that the

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