High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 JH CK 0003

Sanjay Oraon vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 7 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. N. Pathak, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
B.A. No. 3375 of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 362 words

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard

to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and

video clarity and quality.

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Ratu P.S .Case No. 56/2018 dated 11.04.2018, corresponding to POCSO Case No.

35/2018, registered under Section 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Pendal Code and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special Judge POCSO, Ranchi.

Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence and is innocent and petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The First Information Report has been lodged against unknown person. He further submits that during

the course of investigation, some witnesses disclosed that one year prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had teased the deceased and as such,

suspicion was raised against the petitioner and on that basis, he has been made an accused. He further argues that there is no eye witness to the

alleged occurrence and also there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is in judicial custody since

06.11.2019. The petitioner is ready to abide by such terms and condition, which may be imposed upon him for grant of bail. On such grounds, learned

counsel for the petitioner prays for bail.

Mr. Suraj Verma, leaned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that considering the seriousness and gravity of the

offence, the petitioner does not deserve bail as a minor daughter of the informant was murdered after committing rape and the guilt has been

confessed. Charges have been framed and one witness has also been examined.

Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence and also in view of the fact that minor daughter of the informant was murdered after

committing rape, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail application stands rejected.