Dismissed

Bishundhari Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2021B.A./6855/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition filed by petitioner accused in rape case challenged false implication due to financial dispute. Court, noting direct sexual assault allegation, victim statement under Section 164 CrPC, and Tribunal report incompetency, rejected bail application despite minor FIR delay.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of petitioner rejected; petitioner directed to remain in custody.

Bishundhari Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6855 of 2020

¶2

....

¶3

Bishundhari Prasad .… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶6

.... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr.Diwakar Jha, Adv. For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶8

03/06.01.2021 The petitioner is accused in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.30 of 2020 registered under Section 376 of the IPC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as there was a financial dispute between the parties. The husband of the informant has taken Rs.50,000.- as loan from this accused and out of which Rs.20,000/- has been returned and rest Rs.30,000/- was pending and on being pressurized, this false case has been lodged against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in the medical report, there is no proof of rape. There is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶11

Perused the material available on record, it appears that there is directed and specific allegation of sexual assault against this applicant and the victim has supported the allegation in her statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also. Considering the material available on record, I find that there is direct allegation against this applicant and further the victim is aged about 25 years. There is two days delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is not fatal in such cases and the medical report has no consequences as the victim has supported the allegation made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement given under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C.

¶12

In view of above consideration, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶13

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶14

Shahid/

Bishundhari Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishundhari Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tosirul Sk Alias Ahajaul Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Adarsh Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kishor Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babul Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand