IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.NO.3186 of 2015 Jai Govind Pandey @ Govind Pandey .....Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opp.Party.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : M/s.B.V.Kumar and Shankar Singh, Advocates.
For the State : APP.
02/03.11.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. That after investigation police submitted the final form. However, the victim girl was recovered and she has named this petitioner as one of the accused who had abducted her and he along with other co-accused had taken her to Sasaram court for solemnisation of her marriage but the Advocate concerned on getting knowledge that the victim's brother is a practicing Advocate at Sasaram Court refrained from participating. It is submitted that there is no explanation as to why the concerned Advocate did not inform the brother of the victim girl at that point of time. That from the statement of the victim girl it would be evident that from Sasaram she was taken to Bombay and from there she was taken to Delhi where she worked in a Company. That there is no allegation that this petitioner was present at Bombay or Delhi. That the petitioner has been made an accused under Section 319 IPC and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner at this stage. It is submitted that it would be evident from the case diary that no independent witnesses have stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is argued that the petitioner had deposed against the brother of the victim girl in Sessions Case no.429/89, in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtas, as evident from Annexure-2 and it was due to this that the victim has named him in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has alleged that this petitioner along with other two co-accused had abducted her and brought her to Sasaram court for solemnisation of her marriage with co-accused.
Heard. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the court below shall enlarge him on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like 2. amount each to the satisfaction of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with S.T.NO.358/2011(arising out of Chandrapura P.S.Case No.34/2011(G.R.NO.342/2011).
However, it is made clear that if process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner this order shall be deemed to have become infructuous and the court below shall pass necessary order on merit if prayer for bail is made by the petitioner.
(Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Biswas./-