High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 JH CK 0184

Sur Singh Kudada @ Mukhiya Kudada vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Roshan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appeal NO. 4266 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

6 paragraphs · 232 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2.

As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects as pointed out by the registry are hereby ignored for the time being.

3.

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.36 of 2020, corresponding to Spl. (POCSO) Case No.16 of 2020, registered under Sections 376(1) of the IPC, which is pending before the learned Additional Session Judge-I, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted in this case and after going through the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl, it clearly transpires that the victim girl is aged about 21 years. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to personal grudge and for no offences he is lying in custody since March, 2020.

5.

Learned A.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and draw attention of the Court towards impugned order. She further submits that the allegations are very serious in nature.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby dismissed.