In a criminal appeal against conviction, the High Court of Jharkhand granted regular bail to the appellant charged with rape and offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court set aside the lower court's bail rejection order.
The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each.
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
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 02 of 2019
Tannu Khan @ Tanjir Tannu Khan @ Tannu Tanjir Khan … … Appellant Versus
05/02.05.2019 The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in B.P. no. 205 of 2018 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 159 of 2018 registered under Sections 420, 376, 313, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act, 1989), whereby the learned court below has rejected the regular bail application of the appellant.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the respondent no. 2. On perusal of the complaint leading to lodging of the F.I.R., it would appear that there was a physical relationship between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 since 26.07.2008 itself. The said fact was also known to the family members of both the sides. However, the complaint has been instituted by the respondent no. 2 on 01.05.2018 only to harass the appellant. No ingredient of Section 376 of I.P.C. as well as the offence under the penal provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the present case. The appellant is in judicial custody since 14.09.2018 and as such he may be given privilege of regular bail.
Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 while opposing the appellants’ prayer for regular bail, jointly submit
-2-
that there is direct allegation against the appellant as would be evident from the contents of the complaint itself.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. As such, the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti is set aside.
Accordingly, the appellant above named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in B.P. no. 205 of 2018 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 159 of 2018, subject to the condition that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present as and when required by the Trial Court, failing which the said court is at liberty to pass appropriate order against the appellant in accordance with law.
The present criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the appellant falsely implicated in rape and cheating charges.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tannu Khan @ Tanjir
The State of Jharkhand
Victoria Topno
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
