Vinay Sao Alias Vinay Kumar Alias Binay Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/110674
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnAug-08-2017
AppellantVinay Sao Alias Vinay Kumar Alias Binay Kumar
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 1243 of 2017 vinay sao @ vinay kumar @ binay kumar ..... petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand 2. janki yadav 3. anupa kumari ..... opp. parties --------- coram: hon'ble mr. justice anant bijay singh --------- for the petitioner : mr. nilendu kumar, advocate for the state : app --------- cav on 03.08.2017 pronouncement date:08. 08.2017 the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with barhi p.s. case no. 193 of 2016 corresponding to g.r. case no. 2210 of 2016, in the case registered under sections 363, 366 a, 354/34 of the indian penal code and u/s 10 of pocso act. the present case has been registered on the basis of written report of informant, o.p. no. 2, janki yadav wherein it is alleged that on 09.08.2016 at about 3.15 in the evening the binay sao, ankit kumar and md. naushad owner of india hotel and subhash paswan kidnapped victim (a) and her friend victim (b) forcibly from the quality inn hotel in a kreta car bearing no. jh02-aj-5591. it is further alleged that on that point of time one dinesh yadav son of jagdish mahto and another dinesh yadav son of chhatradhari yadav were returning from baba dham and were going to hazaribag via parharia and they saw the accused persons including this petitioner trying to kidnap those girls. on raising hullah by those girls, they chased and tried to stop the car, but the miscreants fled away. thereafter they chased the car and rescued the girls. the victim (a) disclosed that after -2- returning from school she had gone to barhi bazar to buy copy. in the meanwhile, her friend victim (b) meet her in the market and after purchasing copy, they were returning home. at that time, the above stated kreta car came and stopped near them. then her friend victim (b) told her that she knows the accused persons and they board in the car. when the car reached near the home of victim (a), she told to stop the car, but they forcibly took both the victims to quality inn hotel with bad intention and they tried to outrage their modesty. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioner has been implicated in this case. it appears that on 08.03.2017 the petitioner were directed to add the informant as o.p. no. 2 and her daughter, the victim (a) as o.p. no. 3 and to issue notices to them. case- diary was also called for from the court concerned. pursuant thereto, on 04.05.2017, o.p. no. 2 was present but, the o.p. no. 3 was not present. case-diary was also not received and this court directed the office to send express reminder to the court concerned. further, o.p. no. 2 and o.p. no. 3 were directed to remain physically present before this court, so that the possibility of rehabilitation may be explored for the victim (a), the o.p. no.3. on 06.07.2017, o.p. nos. 2 & 3 were physically present before this court and the rehabilitation scheme for o.p. no. 3, victim (a), was explored, but the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 were not inclined to join the rehabilitation scheme. the petitioner also -3- denied the allegation levelled against him and submitted that the dispute arise out due to payment of bill of the dinner in hotel. on that date, the court also issued show-cause notice to the court concerned as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated for not sending case-diary after repeated reminder. in reply to the above show-cause notice issued on 06.07.2017, a report dated 21.07.2017 and the case-diary have been received from the learned district & additional sessions judge-i cum-special judge pocso act, hazaribag. further, the case-diary has been produced and on perusal of the case-diary, it appears from para 42 that statement of both the victims (a) and (b) were recorded u/s 164 of cr.p.c. in which they named the petitioner who along with other accused persons had tried to kidnap them. at para 23 ,statement of dinesh yadav son of jagdish mahto, at para 24, statement of dinesh yadav son of chhatradhari yadav and at para 25 of the case-diary, statement of jai prakash kumar have been recorded and it appears that they are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and stated that they have seen this petitioner along with other accused persons kidnapping the victim (a) and victim (b) in a kreta car and they chased the vehicle and rescued the victim girls. they have also named the petitioner. considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to admit the on anticipatory bail. accordinly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, vinay sao @ vinay kumar @ binay kumar, is, hereby, rejected. petitioner is directed to petitioner to surrender within three weeks from today and, if he fails to do so, the learned -4- district & additional sessions judge-i cum-special judge pocso act, hazaribag is directed to take all coercive steps for his apprehension. on perusal of the show-cause reply of the learned district & additional sessions judge-i cum-special judge pocso act, hazaribag it appears that the said officer had received the order of this court dated 09.03.2017 on 10.03.2017 and on the same date he sent a letter to the s.p. hazaribag with request to send a copy of the case-diary to this court. again reminder of this court dated 08.05.2017 was received on 11.5.2017 and he sent a letter to the s.p, hazaribag on 11.05.2017 to transmit the case-diary to this court. but, the order was not complied. again the order dated 08.07.2017 was received on 10.07.2017 and then on 11.07.2017, a letter sent to s.p., hazaribag , with a copy to the officer incharge barhi p.s. to send the case-diary to this court. then on 12.07.2017 a copy of case-diary was obtained from the officer in-charge of the barhi p.s. and was transmitted before this court. it appears that there is serious latches on the part of the i.o. of this case and officer incharge and dy.s.p. barhi p.s. the s.p., hazaribag is directed personally or to appoint a senior officer not below the rank of s.p. to fix the responsibility due to whose latches, the case-diary was not transmitted which delayed the disposal of this case and to submit a report to this court within 12 weeks. a copy of the order be handed over to learned app to be transmitted to the s.p., hazaribag and nodal officer. -5- a copy of this order be also transmitted to the the court below for transmission of the same to the s.p., hazaribag for taking appropriate action against the erring person. (anant bijay singh, j.) mm
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1243 of 2017 Vinay Sao @ Vinay Kumar @ Binay Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Janki Yadav 3. Anupa Kumari ..... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP --------- CAV on 03.08.2017 Pronouncement Date:

08. 08.2017 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 193 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2210 of 2016, in the case registered under Sections 363, 366 A, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 10 of POCSO Act. The present case has been registered on the basis of written report of informant, O.P. NO. 2, Janki Yadav wherein it is alleged that on 09.08.2016 at about 3.15 in the evening the Binay Sao, Ankit Kumar and Md. Naushad Owner of India Hotel and Subhash Paswan kidnapped victim (A) and her friend victim (B) forcibly from the Quality Inn hotel in a Kreta car bearing no. JH02-AJ-5591. It is further alleged that on that point of time one Dinesh Yadav son of Jagdish Mahto and another Dinesh Yadav son of Chhatradhari Yadav were returning from Baba Dham and were going to Hazaribag via Parharia and they saw the accused persons including this petitioner trying to kidnap those girls. On raising hullah by those girls, they chased and tried to stop the car, but the miscreants fled away. Thereafter they chased the car and rescued the girls. The victim (A) disclosed that after -2- returning from school she had gone to Barhi Bazar to buy copy. In the meanwhile, her friend victim (B) meet her in the market and after purchasing copy, they were returning home. At that time, the above stated Kreta car came and stopped near them. Then her friend victim (B) told her that she knows the accused persons and they board in the car. When the car reached near the home of victim (A), she told to stop the car, but they forcibly took both the victims to Quality Inn hotel with bad intention and they tried to outrage their modesty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioner has been implicated in this case. It appears that on 08.03.2017 the petitioner were directed to add the informant as O.P. No. 2 and her daughter, the victim (A) as O.P. No. 3 and to issue notices to them. Case- diary was also called for from the court concerned. Pursuant thereto, on 04.05.2017, O.P. No. 2 was present but, the O.P. No. 3 was not present. Case-diary was also not received and this Court directed the office to send express reminder to the court concerned. Further, O.P. NO. 2 and O.P. No. 3 were directed to remain physically present before this Court, so that the possibility of rehabilitation may be explored for the Victim (A), the O.P. No.

3. On 06.07.2017, O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 were physically present before this Court and the rehabilitation scheme for O.P. No. 3, victim (A), was explored, but the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 were not inclined to join the rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner also -3- denied the allegation levelled against him and submitted that the dispute arise out due to payment of bill of the dinner in hotel. On that date, the Court also issued show-cause notice to the court concerned as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated for not sending case-diary after repeated reminder. In reply to the above show-cause notice issued on 06.07.2017, a report dated 21.07.2017 and the case-diary have been received from the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Hazaribag. Further, the case-diary has been produced and on perusal of the case-diary, it appears from para 42 that statement of both the victims (A) and (B) were recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. in which they named the petitioner who along with other accused persons had tried to kidnap them. At para 23 ,statement of Dinesh Yadav son of Jagdish Mahto, at para 24, statement of Dinesh Yadav son of Chhatradhari Yadav and at para 25 of the case-diary, statement of Jai Prakash Kumar have been recorded and it appears that they are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and stated that they have seen this petitioner along with other accused persons kidnapping the victim (A) and victim (B) in a Kreta car and they chased the vehicle and rescued the victim girls. They have also named the petitioner. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to admit the on anticipatory bail. Accordinly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, Vinay Sao @ Vinay Kumar @ Binay Kumar, is, hereby, rejected. Petitioner is directed to petitioner to surrender within three weeks from today and, if he fails to do so, the learned -4- District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Hazaribag is directed to take all coercive steps for his apprehension. On perusal of the show-cause reply of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Hazaribag it appears that the said officer had received the order of this court dated 09.03.2017 on 10.03.2017 and on the same date he sent a letter to the S.P. Hazaribag with request to send a copy of the case-diary to this Court. Again reminder of this Court dated 08.05.2017 was received on 11.5.2017 and he sent a letter to the S.P, Hazaribag on 11.05.2017 to transmit the case-diary to this Court. But, the order was not complied. Again the order dated 08.07.2017 was received on 10.07.2017 and then on 11.07.2017, a letter sent to S.P., Hazaribag , with a copy to the Officer Incharge Barhi P.S. to send the case-diary to this Court. Then on 12.07.2017 a copy of case-diary was obtained from the Officer in-charge of the Barhi P.S. and was transmitted before this Court. It appears that there is serious latches on the part of the I.O. of this case and Officer Incharge and DY.S.P. Barhi P.S. The S.P., Hazaribag is directed personally or to appoint a senior officer not below the rank of S.P. to fix the responsibility due to whose latches, the case-diary was not transmitted which delayed the disposal of this case and to submit a report to this Court within 12 weeks. A copy of the order be handed over to learned APP to be transmitted to the S.P., Hazaribag and Nodal Officer. -5- A copy of this order be also transmitted to the the court below for transmission of the same to the S.P., Hazaribag for taking appropriate action against the erring person. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) MM