High CourtsSingle Bench

Pawan Munda vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376AB · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6, 8
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No.779 of 2021
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

18 paragraphs · 364 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the 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 Raidih P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 registered under Sections 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 4/6/8 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the minor victim girl.

It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is inordinate delay of more than a year in lodging the

F.I.R. Drawing attention of this Court towards Annexure-2/1 which is the copy of the petitioner submitted by 29 villagers to the Officer-In-charge of

Raidih Police Station, wherein it has been mentioned that in the village Panchayat, the victim stated that no occurrence took place and as the brother

of the victim was suspicious that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with the victim, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner.

It is also submitted that in the medical examination report, it has been mentioned that no injury was found but sexual assault could not be ruled out. It is

then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since

23.08.2020 which is evident from para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in

connection with Raidih P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case.