Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28184 (JHR)

NAVEEN ORAON v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./10918/2024 · 2025-01-24

Rajesh Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10918 of 2024 ---- Naveen Oraon, aged about 19 years, S/o Rakesh Oraon, resident of Village Saparum Turitola, P.O. Choreya, P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ---- 04/Dated: 24th January, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The applicant, who is in custody since 04.01.2023, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No.29 of 2023, arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No.02 of 2023, registered for the offence under Section 376(D)/34 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi. 3. The prayer for bail of the applicant was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2024 passed in B.A No.8674 of 2023. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. Charge has already been framed against this petitioner on 11.04.2023. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been renewed. 5. From perusal of the report sent by the learned Trial Court, it appears that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again. 8. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within three months. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded