The single-judge bench of the High Court of Jharkhand rejected bail for the petitioner charged with rape, holding that the FIR contents and the nature of the offence precluded granting bail, rejecting claims that the impugned police action arose from a pending partition suit.
Prayer for bail was 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.70 of 2020
Arun Nayak. ... .Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party ----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the State : APP. -----
02/14-1-2020 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019, G.R. Case No. 641 of 2019.
It appears that the petitioner and one Sanjit Nayak @ Sanju had committed rape upon the informant.
Although, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been implicated on account of partition suit which was going on between the parties but in view of the contents of the FIR and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with rape given the evidence in the FIR and nature of the offence despite claims of partition dispute?
Whether the alleged partition suit between the parties warrant consideration for granting bail in a rape case?
Arun Nayak
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
