SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has committed no offence as alleged. The entire allegation made against the petitioner has been concocted by the informant. No case under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. The victim herself returned back home and, thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As such, the false implication of the petitioner is itself evident from the said fact. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 5th March, 2019 and, therefore, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

(3.) Learned APP while opposing the petitioner's prayer for bail submits that the victim girl is minor, aged about 14-15 years. She has fully supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Though the charge against the petitioner has been framed on 23rd May, 2019, the victim has not yet been examined in the trial and as such the petitioner may not be given the privilege of regular bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail in connection with POCSO Case No.34 of 2019, arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No.29 of 2019. Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.