Gurudev Nayak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5139 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 471 of 2022
                                  ---------

         Gurudev Nayak                             ... ... Appellant
                                  Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                 ... ... Respondent
                                  ---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

---------

I.A. No. 9925 of 2022 03/19.12.2022 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences u/s 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the maximum sentence which has been imposed upon him is R.I. for 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence u/s 6 of the POCSO Act.

It has been alleged that the appellant had sexually exploited the daughter of the informant who was mentally challenged and suffering from epilepsy as a result of which she had become pregnant.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court had not come to a definite finding with respect to the age of the victim. It has been submitted that no case u/s 6 of the POCSO Act is made out as merely on the statement of the father of the victim, her age has been assessed to be 16 years though the father who has been examined as P.W.3 has also stated that the victim has studied up to Class-I. Learned counsel further submits that there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim which resulted in her becoming pregnant and considering such circumstances as well as the

period of custody undergone by the appellant he deserves to be released on bail.

Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

It appears that the victim has given her age as 16 years and so has her father and during her 164 Cr.P.C. statement the learned Magistrate has assessed her age to be 16 years. These facts have been considered by the learned trial court as would appear from the impugned judgment. It further appears that the victim had become pregnant and subsequently had given birth to a child. The DNA report reveals that the appellant was the biological father of the child.

On consideration of the aforesaid scenario, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected.

I.A. No. 9925 of 2022 stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Alok/-