Jharkhand High Court
Babu Ram Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
-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 -2- 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 -3- 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/