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
9 paragraphs · 373 wordsHeard, learned counsel Mrs. Vani Kumari assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 9 (i) to (iii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 19.06.2020, have not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard, as it is a regular bail application of the petitioner, who is in custody since 18.02.2020.
Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the instant bail application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) within 30 days after the physical court starts.
Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defect(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 42/2020, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 19/2020 for the offence registered under Sections 366A I.P.C. and Sections 4/8 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has love affair with the victim, who is grand-daughter of the informant and both eloped on 09.02.2020, but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.02.2020 and under duress the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though the victim is a major girl, as such, petitioner, who is in custody since 18.02.2020, may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that a minor girl, aged about 14 years, has been forcibly kidnapped by this petitioner, which is apparent from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Since there is a serious allegation against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, as such, this application may be rejected.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material brought on record and looking into age of the victim as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby rejected.