SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sk Majid Alias Bobby vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 3165 of 2017
………
Sk. Majid @ Bobby ——  Petitioner
Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                                       ­­­­­­­  Opposite Party 
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Faisal Khan, Advocate
For the O.P. : A.P.P.
         03/02.05.2017  

1. Bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner namely Sk. Majid @ Bobby 
who is in custody in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 05 of 2017, corresponding to 
G.R.Case no. 501 of 2017 for the offence registered U/Ss. 354/354D/504/506 of the  
I.P.C. and Section 12 of POCSO Act.  

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

3. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   submitted   that   there   was   love   affair 
between the informant and the petitioner which was not accepted by the parents of 
informant and as such this false case has been instituted agaisnt the petitioner. All the 
sections are bailable in nature except Section 354 IPC. Thereis no criminal antecedent  
against the petitioner hence, he may be released on bail.

4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the 
facts of harassment there is also an allegation in the   FIR that petitioner had given a  
threat   of   throwing   acid   to   the   informant   hence,   petitioner   does   not   deserve   to   be 
enlarged on bail.    

5. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances 
of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the above named petitioner on bail, on furnishing 
bail bond of Rs. 20,000/­(Twenty Thousand only) with  two sureties of the like amount 
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st  JSR, Jamshedpur in 
connection with Mahila P.S. case no. 5 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.Case no. 501 of 
2017, with condition that the petitioner will not approach the informant, or be found to  
be   in   disturbing   proximity   of   the   informant,   and   also   he   will   not   intimidate   the 
informant   or   her   family   members,   failing   which,   his   bail   bond   shall   be   cancelled 
immediately. Moreover, the parents of the petitioner are also directed to keep their child 
under supervision.

                                                                                            (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
KNR/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation