High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner’s bail application. The petitioner alleged the victim consented, but the State opposed based on force and the victim being a minor. The court declined bail at this stage.
Bail application of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.
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 (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
B.A .No. 7341 of 2022
Ramdas
The State of Jharkhand
… … Petitioner Versus … … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit , Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto , APP
Order No. 05 /Dated: 05th September, 2022
Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit , the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned APP for the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not enticed away the victim rather she was a consenting party. The victim has stated contradictory version in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the medical board has found the age of the victim between 17-18 years, hence no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the victim has stated in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she was acquainted with the petitioner and went to Ranchi and Hazaribagh and petitioner married with the victim in Ranchi and hence she is a consenting party.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and pointed out that from the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. it is apparent that she was not the consenting party and she was compelled under force and she has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that she was a minor during the course of events and therefore bail the petitioner does not deserve bail.
Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected, at this stage.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Sharda/
Ramdas
The State of Jharkhand
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
