Umesh Rai vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Ranjan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 5(a)(e) and 9 (i) to (vii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 26.08.2020, 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 and petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2020.

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 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 Mihijam P.S. Case No. 10/2020, for the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(i), 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3 & 6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay of one year in lodging the F.I.R., as the petitioner is step maternal grandfather of the victim, who is aged about 55 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and to that effect, compromise petition has been brought on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh appears on behalf of the informant and he may be heard, so that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State, M/s. Snehlika Bhagat, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is a minor girl, aged about 13-14 years and the offence is under Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act, which are non-compoundable offence, as such, compromise petition amounts to tampering with the evidence, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that detail counter affidavit may be filed in this regard and if parties have entered into compromise, it would be better that evidence should be led before the trial court, so that trial court may adjudicate the case.

Learned counsel for the Informant, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, has supported the contention of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail as they have settled their dispute.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, State Counsel is directed to file detail counter affidavit within a period of four weeks from today.