Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 10 December, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 9365 of 2020
Deepak Verma ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Kumar , Adv.
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha , Addl. P.P.
02 / 10.12.2020Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
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.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.s. case no. 63 of 2020 (POCSO case no. 41 of 2020) instituted under sections 376 (A,B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4/8 of POCSO Act .
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape on a minor girl of below 12 years of age. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C that the victim has not stated about commission of rape upon her and the report of the FSL, shows that no blood or sperm was found in the panty of the victim. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 05.02.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the bail application hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that as mentioned in the order of the rejection dt. 20.07.2020 passed by learned court below, there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed rape upon a nine years old girl and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the victim has also made the statement recorded under section 164 Cr. PC as well as before the CWC. It is further submitted by learned Addl. PP that in the provisional medical report of the doctor who examined the victim on 06.02.2020, it is apparent that reddish color injury near her private part was found with hymen recently torn within 24 hours along with the stained cloth which was sealed and handed over to the I.O. for further investigation hence, in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.
Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner and overwhelming evidence against him, there is every chance of petitioner absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view 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.) Smita/-