The petitioner, apprehending arrest, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape and causing miscarriage. The court considered the serious allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
The prayer for anticipatory bail 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
A.B. A. No. 6128 of 2017
Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Sandeep Gupta @ Tun Tun
… Petitioner
Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rinki Kumari … Opposite Parties
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State : Addl. P.P. For the Opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Adv.
06 / 06.04.18 Apprehending his arrest, the sole petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila (Bharno), P.S. Case No. 09 of 2017 (G. R. No. 523 of 2017 ) registered under Sections 376, 313 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. PP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape upon opposite party no. 2 and caused miscarriage of the fetus of the opposite party twice. It was further submitted that allegations against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is direct allegation of rape and of causing miscarriage of the fetus of the opposite party no. 2 twice against the petitioner and there is requirement for his custodial interrogation during investigation hence the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Smita/( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges of rape and causing miscarriage.
Whether the direct allegation of a serious nature and the need for custodial interrogation justify denying anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Kumar Gupta
The State of Jharkhand
Rinki Kumari
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
