an order refusing anticipatory bail to a petitioner in a case alleging abduction and rape, considering the serious nature of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.
Prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail 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 A.B.A. No. 7202 of 2021
Pankaj Choudhari @ Pankaj Kr. Chaudhary
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 27.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No.108 of 2021 registered under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has abducted the informant-victim and committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is no allegation of rape in the F.I.R. and only in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has developed the prosecution case by alleging commission of rape. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim in fact went with her husband along with their daughter as stated by Rina Tudu in para-15 of the case diary. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in view of the serious allegation against the petitioner of abduction and commission of rape upon the victim, his custodial interrogation is required to find out the details of the case and for scientific examination. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing serious allegations of abduction and rape.
Whether custodial interrogation is required for the investigation of the case.
Pankaj Choudhari @ Pankaj Kr. Chaudhary
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
