Chand J rejected a bail application in a rape case. The applicant, accused of forced entry and rape under IPC Sections 376 and 452 with Section 506, argued MMI and false implication. The State relied on the prosecutrix's statement and medical evidence. The bail application was rejected.
The bail application 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. 10842 of 2021
Bhagwan Jee Prasad @ Mahngu … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND Through: Video Conferencing ---------For the petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
04/ 18.01.2022 This bail application is on behalf of applicant Bhagwan Jee Prasad @ Mahngu with a prayer to release him on bail in case crime being Gomia P.S. Case No. 55 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 642 of 2021 (District- Bokaro), registered for the offence under Sections 452/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by the victim herself against her brother-in-law ( Jeth ), namely, Bhagwan Jee Prasad @ Mahngu with the allegations that on 3rd June 2021 at 11 O’clock in night she was alone in her room and her brother-in-law knocked the door but she did not open the door and after some time when she opened the door, he forcibly intruded in the room and dropped her on the ground, tore her clothes and forcibly committed rape. It is further submitted that on the fateful night her husband was not present and on the next day she told in regard to the occurrence to her husband and lodged the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations made are not supported with the medical evidence and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 10.06.2021.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that FIR of this case was lodged by the victim herself and she has supported the FIR’s allegations in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant-accused, who is the brotherin-law of the victim, against her will had forcibly entered the room and committed rape and this statement of prosecutrix is also supported with the medical evidence, wherein it was opined that the sexual intercourse cannot be denied.
In view of the submissions made and considering the materials available on record this bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
A.K.Verma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail application should be granted given the victim's statement and medical evidence supporting the charge of rape.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhagwan Jee Prasad @ Mahngu
SUBHASH CHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
