In a bail petition under Section 376 of the IPC, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the prayer for bail. The court held that the allegations fell within Section 375(a) IPC and it was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI . B.A.No. 5552 of 2014
Dilip Kumar Petitioner. Versus State of Jharkhand Opp.party . ------ CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR .
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B.Lal For the State : Md. Hatim, Addl.P.P
02/11.09.2014. Bail petition filed by Dilip Kumar, in connection with Dhurwa P.S.case no. 92/2014, corresponding to G.R.No. 2351/2014, pending in the court of J.M.Ist Class, Ranchi, is moved by Mr. M.B.Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Md. Hatim, Addl.P.P. for the State.
From the allegation made in the F.I.R.,it appears that offence under section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out, as the act of the petitioner comes within the four corners of Section 375 (a) of the I.P.C.
Under the said circumstance ,I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
( Prashant Kumar,J.)
Raman/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
Dilip Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
