High CourtsSingle Bench

Raja Ram @ Jai Kishan Ram vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 13 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 JH CK 0142

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 376, 504, 506 · Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 10900 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 · 385 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 Gumla (Mahila) P.S. case no. 07 of 2020 registered under sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 376,

34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4/6 POCSO Act, 2012.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon a minor

victim girl. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim has

stated that the petitioner committed rape upon her and when the victim cried, the petitioner assured to marry her and the petitioner used to

continuously commit rape upon her as and when he returned from Ranchi and in June 2020, it was known that the victim was pregnant and the

Mukhiya convened a meeting and the petitioner agreed to take the victim to his house and when the victim went to the house of the petitioner, she was

not allowed to enter inside the house and she was made to stay in the courtyard. 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 that the petitioner has been in jail custody since

10.09.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 1 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 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 ACJM,

Gumla in connection with Gumla (Mahila) P.S. case no. 07 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case.