High CourtsSingle Bench

Pintu Kumar Mehta @ Pintu Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 JH CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(i), 372(2)(n) · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10369 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

18 paragraphs · 359 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 Special POCSO case no. 25 of 2020 arising out of Untari Road P.S. case no. 05 of 2020

instituted under sections 376 (2) (i), 372 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of POCSO Act..

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim. 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 drawing attention of the court to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 CrPC that therein the victim has stated that she was

in love with the petitioner and the petitioner used to establish physical relationship with the her on the promise of marriage but later on, the petitioner

refused to marry her. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 23.02.2020 as

mentioned in paragraph 13 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, Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Special POCSO case no. 25 of 2020 arising out of

Untari Road P.S. case no. 05 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case.