High CourtsSingle Bench

Pinki Devi vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 JH CK 0167

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 147, 149, 323, 325, 341, 354, 354B, 448, 452, 500, 504, 506, 509
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11017 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

15 paragraphs · 341 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No.86 of 2020 (G.R. No.610 of 2020) registered under

sections 147/ 149/ 323/ 325 /341 /354 /354B /448 /452/500/504/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has outraged the modesty of the victim and

by branding her Daain cut her hair and tied her hands and make her parade in the village in half nude condition. It is further submitted that the

allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and the

co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail by the coordinate bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in

custody since 22.05.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to

cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to

enlarge the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, 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 S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with

Petarwar P.S. Case No.86 of 2020 (G.R. No.610 of 2020) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case.