Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1260 (JHR)

Subhash Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-25

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
ORDER Anant Bijay Singh, J. – The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jamua P.S. case no. 252 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 07 of 2017 under section 366 (A)/376 of the I.P.C. and sections 4/8 of POCSO Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Laxman Yadav gave a written report to the Officer In-charge of Jamua police on 18.11.2016 that on 11.11.2016 his daughter aged about 17 years was sleeping at his house but on 12.11.2016 in the morning he did not find his daughter. In course of search he came to know that one Ganesh Kumar Yadav has taken away her daughter on enticement of marriage. 3. On 04.04.2017 learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to add the complainant as o.p.no. 2 and victim as o.p. no. 3. On that day Case-diary was called for and an interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties along with their client were directed to remain physically present in the Court, so that the possibility of rehabilitation of the victim under Jharkhand Victim Compensation Act, 2012 may be explored. The case was directed to be listed on 05.07.2017 and o.p. no. 2 showed his reluctance on the question of legal aid. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation levelled against this petitioner is false and baseless. During medical examination, it appears that no sign of rape was found. There is no criminal antecedent against this petitioner. 5. Learned APP and counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that victim in her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 stated that she has been ravished by this petitioner and others repeatedly. 6. Be that as it may, keeping in view the nature of allegation, I am no inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 7. Further on 05.06.2017, it was directed that financial help to the victim form the State fund will be passed on the next date i.e. 25.7.2017 (today). 8. Trial court is directed to issue notice to the o.p. no. 2 Laxman Yadav and the o.p. No. 3, the victim, Rubi Kumari for their appearance before the court. 7. Further on 05.06.2017, it was directed that financial help to the victim form the State fund will be passed on the next date i.e. 25.7.2017 (today). 8. Trial court is directed to issue notice to the o.p. no. 2 Laxman Yadav and the o.p. No. 3, the victim, Rubi Kumari for their appearance before the court. Thereafter, the trial court in consultation with Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, DLSA and Secretary, DLSA, Giridih are directed to provide any benefit out of nine schemes sponsored by NALSA executed by JHALSA and DLSA and also provide financial help to the O.P. No. 3 (victim) taking help from the state fund and submit its report within 12 weeks. 9. List this case after 12 weeks. 10. Let a copy of the order be sent to the court concerned, court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Giridih and also to the Secretary, DLSA, Giridih.