Raju Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 240 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              B.A. No. 11102 of 2020
                       ------

     Raju Munda                               ...              Petitioner
                                    Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                     ...           Opposite Party
                                     ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

    For the Petitioner         : Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate
    For the State              : Mr. R. Vardhan, Addl. P.P.
                                     ------
    Order No.02 Dated- 18.01.2021

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

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

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.05 of 2017 (POCSO Case No.08 of 2017 (S)) registered under sections 376G/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons has committed gang rape upon the victim. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has categorically stated about the commission of gang rape by the petitioner upon her. It is next submitted that the co-accused has been acquitted after trial but the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have the copy of the said judgment by which co-accused person has been acquitted. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this is a serious case of gang rape upon the minor victim girl of 15 years of age by the petitioner and the co-accused persons and as the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing gang rape upon the minor victim girl, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/