Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... on 14 October, 2020

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... on 14 October, 2020

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    A.B. A. No. 4813 of 2020

           Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar Paswan                          ...             Petitioner

                                                   Versus
           The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                    ...       Opposite Parties


     Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


         For the Petitioner                  : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Adv.
         For the State                       : Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P.




02 / 14.10.2020

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bariyatu P.S. case no. 34 of 2020 registered under Sections 363A, 376G, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of POCSO Act..

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner kidnapped the victim and committed gang rape upon her. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false, in fact, there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim is a major lady; her year birth being 2001. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the victim and petitioner left the house willingly for solemnizing marriage and the family members of the victim were not ready to accept the marriage of the victim and forcibly abducted the brother of the petitioner, for which, an FIR vide Jamua (Giridih) P.S. case no. 02 of 2020 was registered but the learned counsel of the petitioner submits that he cannot produce any copy of the said FIR. It is then submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in case, of one to one love affair between the petitioner and the victim, there was no occasion for the victim being gang raped. It is then submitted that the age of the victim is seven years which is crystal clear from the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 CrPC and in her statement also she has supported the case of the prosecution, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of coming gangrape upon the victim and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court