Bail application disposed against the State, rejecting the petitioner's request based on the serious nature of the rape charge and consistent naming by the victim in the FIR and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The Single Judge was not inclined to grant relief.
Prayer for bail rejected; petitioner to remain in judicial custody.
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. 11193 of 2022
Dhirendra Tudu ... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
02/05.12.2022 Heard Mr. S.K. Murtty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Taratand P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022.
The informant was subjected to rape by the accused persons.
The petitioner is named in the First Information Report. Even in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim has named the petitioner as one of the persons who was present at the time of commission of rape upon her.
Regard being had to the above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is hereby rejected.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the petitioner who is an accused in an Rape case.
Whether to repose faith in the First Information Report and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
Dhirendra Tudu
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
