IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Chhotu Oraon S/o Laleshwar Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal is filed against the Order dated 05.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3033 of 2024, by which regular bail of the appellants has been rejected in connection with A.H.T.U. P.S. Case No.06 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No.575 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 363 , 370 of I.P.C. and Section 79 of J.J. Act, pending in the Court of A.J.C.-IV, Ranchi
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where no ingredient of Section 370 of I.P.C. is attracted, which would be evident from the statement so recorded of the Victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been contended that the statement of the victim which was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will demonstrate that there is no intent or ingredient to attract the offence said to be committed under Section 370 of I.P.C.It has also been submitted that the appellants have already remained in custody for about Eight months since 14.06.2024.It is further submitted that the trial is going on, in which even though the Victim is not a chargesheeted witness, she has already been e
The court determined that the absence of trafficking elements in the victim's statement warranted bail, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights and the duration of custody.
The court upheld the trial court's denial of bail, citing substantial evidence from the victim's consistent statements supporting serious charges against the appellant.
The court emphasized the right to a fair trial under Article 21, allowing bail due to prolonged custody and limited witness examination.
The court ruled that consent from the victim and her mother negated the exploitation element necessary for trafficking under Section 370 IPC, justifying the granting of anticipatory bail.
The court emphasized that significant delays in filing an FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents are critical factors in bail considerations.
The victim's consent to the relationship negated the applicability of trafficking and rape charges, allowing for the granting of bail.
The court emphasized that lack of criminal antecedents and the return of the victims substantiate the case for granting bail despite serious charges under IPC and ITP Act.
The court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of detention, and the 164 statement of the victim girl in granting bail to the appellant.
The court's decision was influenced by the serious nature of the allegations of rape and the provisions of the POCSO Act against the petitioner.
Suspension of sentence granted based on inconsistent evidence regarding alleged rape, thus enabling bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.