Rejection of bail application by petitioner accused in rape case. Court observed grave nature of allegations in restatement and directed trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial.
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. 6445 of 2019
Md. Samid @ Hapud @ Akbar Alihas @ Samid @ Md. Akbar Ali.
Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : APP -----
03/20.11.2019 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2006, G.R. No. 1555 of 2006, S.T. No. 237 of 2019.
It has been alleged that the when the informant had gone outside her home to relieve herself, the petitioner and Md. Yunus Mian had committed rape upon her. She was taken to Ranchi where also she was raped. In her restatement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has specifically stated about the role played by the petitioner in committing the rape.
Regard being had to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused facing serious rape allegations.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Samid @ Hapud @ Akbar Ali
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
