Bail application rejected on 13.01.2021. Court rejected prayer for bail in a sexual interference case due to victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC and private doctor's report, despite petitioner's claim of false implication and lack of physical signs in medical report.
Bail application rejected. Petitioner denied bail.
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. 5990 of 2020
....
Paramdayal Paswan .… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
.... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
04/13.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is accused in connection with Pipratand P. S. Case No. 22 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 2117 of 2017 (S.T. No. 535 of 2019) pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. After marriage, the victim girl has made an allegation of sexual intercourse against this petitioner for last several years. However, in the medical report, there is no such sign of sexual intercourse. On the basis of above material, prayer for bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. By referring to para-70 of the case diary, it has been submitted that the I. O. has examined the private doctor, who has supported the allegation of delivery of a child and the victim girl has supported the case in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C.
Considering the material available on record and the statement recorded of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C, this Court is not inclined to enlarge this petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Kamlesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a sexual interference case despite the absence of physical signs in the medical report.
Whether the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by the victim girl and the private doctor's report justifies rejecting the bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paramdayal Paswan
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
