SONU GIRI ALIAS SONU KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./5686/2025 · 2025-07-10
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15027 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 15027 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:JHHC:18686] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.5686 of 2025
------ Sonu Giri @ Sonu Kumar son of Shambhu Giri, aged about 26 Years resident of Village Dhebara, P.O. Pandaria, P.S. Simra, District Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ziaul Haque, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-10-07-2025
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Tarhasi P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 96 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has procured the minor victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2025 as is evident from para-12 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim in her statement appearing in para-14 of the case-diary stated that the petitioner has allured her and forcibly committed rape upon her twice. It is next submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the bail of the above named
petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/