In a bail application, the bench found the victim evidence consistent and reiterated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the plea despite office defects.
The bail application was rejected and not allowed.
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. 9448 of 2021
Jaleshwar Mahto … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.
3/01.12.2021 Heard the parties.
Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 78 of 2021 corresponding to G. R. No. 488 of 2021.
The petitioner is alleged to have tried to commit rape upon the informant and on raising alarm people started assembling after which the petitioner was apprehended.
It appears from the FIR that the informant has disclosed that the petitioner has committed rape upon her which fact has been reiterated by her in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Regard being had to the consistency of the evidence of the victim, I am not inclined to allow this application and the same is hereby rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail application filed by an accused alleged of attempting to commit rape with consistent victim evidence should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaleshwar Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court