Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 621 (JHR)

Laxman Bharti @ Laxu Bharti v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-25

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : 1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1203 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra in connection with Kundu P. S. Case No. 42 of 2022 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 74 of 2024, registered under Sections 363 , 376, 376D, 323, 370 , 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 of the POCSO Act ; whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the implication of the present appellant is totally false since there is no direct evidence said to have attracted any ingredient of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code . Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion and languishing in judicial custody since 19.08.2024. 3. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR with specific allegation of being involved in trafficking of minor girls and also committing rape on the victim girl. Further, the prosecution version has fully been supported by the victim in her statement, who happens to be minor, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as would be evident from paragraph 96 of the case diary. Therefore, in addition to 376D of the Indian Penal Code , Section 6 of the POCSO Act has also been alleged against the present appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the State based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a case where the impugned order requires interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and the case diary. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and the case diary. 7. It is evident from the prosecution version, as recorded on the basis of fardbeyan of the victim that she was stated that the present appellant sold her to another person and also committed rape upon her and after committing rape left her in lonely place where also she was subjected to rape by two persons. However, she somehow reached after 3-4 days in police station and gave her fardbeyan, accordingly, the FIR was registered. 8. On perusal of paragraph 3 and 5 of the case diary it is evident that victim was medically examined and further from paragraph 6 that her statement was recorded before the Child Welfare Committee and from paragraph 81 and 96 of the case diary wherein statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded, wherefrom it is evident that she is consistent in her statement as recorded in the FIR. 9. In the case at hand, charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance of the offence has also been taken. 10. It appears that all the facts has duly been considered by the learned trial Court, as such, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires no interference by this Court. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 12. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.