Parmeshwar Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No.66 of 2019 instituted under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren- learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 26.11.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.8112 of 2019 interim order of provisional bail was granted to the petitioner till 13.02.2020 only in case of the petitioner being arrested by police on or before 13.02.2020 but by misrepresentation the petitioner appeared before the trial court and was released on bail by the trial court and subsequently the A.B.A. No.8112 of 2019 was withdrawn after availing the benefit of being released by the trial court, of course upon misrepresentation. Now another anticipatory bail application has been filed containing therein that the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable and the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the trial court has been quashed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that since by misrepresentation, the petitioner has already been released on bail by the trial court and subsequently his bail was cancelled and Non bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him hence, the second prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner after his appearance in the trial court and upon availing the privileges of bail for a considerable period of time is not maintainable.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his conduct of misleading the court by suppressing material facts and also the fact that the petitioner has appeared before the trial court and availed the benefit of bail for a considerable period of time, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.