Dismissed

Bablu Kumar Dangi Alias Bablu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Oct 2020B.A./4474/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bail application of Bablu Kumar Dangi was rejected. The Court held that the victim supported the rape allegation in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, outweighing the petitioner's claim of contradictions. No illegal gratification by the police was found. The trial is to be expedited within six months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; trial to be concluded within six months; petitioner may renew bail prayer after one year.

Bablu Kumar Dangi Alias Bablu Kumar Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) B.A. No. 4474 of 2020

¶2

Bablu Kumar Dangi @ Bablu Kumar ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party ---------

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶4

--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶5

¶6

03/Dated: 09/10/2020

¶7

Pursuant to previous order dated 07.08.2020, report has been submitted by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Chatra stating therein that in first and second requisition filed for obtaining the certified copy of the F.I.R. and rejection of the bail order, the Pairvikar of the petitioner has never prayed for issuance of certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., rather after receipt of Memo No. 3066/B.A. & A.B.A. in the bail application on 11.08.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court, a requisition vide petition no. 4608 dated 19.08.2020 was filed for certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same has been supplied to concerned learned counsel for the petitioner in sealed envelop on 26.08.2020.

¶8

Considering such show cause submitted by Registrar, Civil Courts, Chatra, the same is accepted.

¶9

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects in compliance of the previous order dated 07.08.2020.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 21.11.2019 and on the statement of the victim, an F.I.R. has been drawn on 25.11.2019.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the first information report, the victim has categorically stated that this petitioner enticed her and took her for 20 steps and thereafter committed sexual intercourse and on brawl raised by the victim, the

¶13

-2-

¶14

husband of the victim and one Dharmendra came and thereafter both of them assaulted the accused Bablu Kumar Dangi.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 18.12.2019 where the victim has not only change the place of occurrence, but also stated something which are contradictory to her fardbeyan.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has alleged that this petitioner has committed rape against her will in the field of tomato, thereafter her husband and one person came, they assaulted Bablu Kumar Dangi and informant was also assaulted by her husband and was also threatening the informant that he will put the entire family of informant on fire. She has alleged that legal action be taken against Bablu and her husband and punished them in accordance with law.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that medical evidence does not corroborate the averment made by the victim, as such, petitioner, who is in custody since 18.04.2020, may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that commission of rape has been alleged in the F.I.R., the same has been supported by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no pleading or evidence material brought on record to suggest that such relationship was established because of consensual relationship between the parties, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of the case, as the victim has supporting her case in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶21

-3-

¶22

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial within a period of six months.

¶23

It is made clear that petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining in custody for one year before the learned trial court.

¶24

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶25

Sunil-Jay/

Bablu Kumar Dangi Alias Bablu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumar Dangi Alias Bablu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms a v Buildcon through One of Its Partner Sri Bimal Kumar Singhania Vs Smt Chaya Papneja

Shiv Mangal Singh And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway

Smt Sanju Devi Vs Union Of India Through General Manager South Eastern Railway

Deepak Saw Alias Deepak Modaha Alias Deepak Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Mahajan Vs Shailendra Chandravanshi and Ors.

Bahul Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand