Babu Ram Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1690 Jhar

                               -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr. Appeal (DB) No.467 of 2023
                              ----

Babu Ram Marandi                     ...    ...     Appellant
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand               ...    ... Respondents
                            -------

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

--------

th Order No. 03 : Dated 20 April, 2023

I.A. No.3193 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been preferred under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 329

days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.

Heard parties.

Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory

application and having no objection on the part of the

Respondent State, the delay of 329 days in preferring the appeal

is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 3657 of 2023 stands allowed.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.467 of 2023

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the

order/judgment dated 04.02.2023 passed by learned Special

Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj in POCSO Case No.32 of 2019

whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the

appellant in connection with the alleged commission of offence

under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this

case and nothing specific has come against him but without

taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the prayer for bail

of the appellant has been rejected vide impugned order dated

04.02.2023 passed in POCSO Case No.32 of 2019.

While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned

Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand

has submitted that the nature of allegation which has been

levelled against the appellant has been found to be correct by

the investigating agency basis upon which the charge has been

submitted against the appellant for commission of offence

under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

It has further been submitted that the statement of the

victim has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. who

has fully corroborated the prosecution version and if on that

premise the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail has been

rejected, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the material available on record as also the finding

recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order, it is

evident that the victim girl, the minor, was taken to Delhi on

the pretext of providing job to her and when it was reported to

the police, the matter has been investigated and in course of

investigation the complicity of the appellant in commission of

offence under Section 370, 371, 372 and 376 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been surfaced

basis upon which the chargesheet has been submitted.

Further, the victim has also given her statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has supported the allegation of

her taking away and even establishment of physical relationship

forcefully by the appellant.

It further appears from the impugned order that charge in

the case has been framed against the accused on 08.12.2022.

Considering the aforesaid fact and taking into

consideration the nature of allegation levelled against the

appellant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order.

Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the appellant

through Jail Superintendent.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/