Single judge rejected bail application in rape case citing FIR allegations and victim statement indicating non-consent, despite defence reliance on medical evidence.
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.9386 of 2022
Sanjay Kumar Saha ..... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. --------
05/23.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the
State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant with prayer to release on bail in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No.01 of 2022 registered under Sections 376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per F.I.R. allegations, on 30.12.2021 at 4 o’ clock of early morning, the accused—Sanjay Kumar had intruded in the house of the informant and raped her while Vishnu Saha was guarding at the gate. Accused—Sanjay Saha was handed over to the persons of the locality and this F.I.R. was lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per F.I.R. allegations, the occurrence is of 30.12.2021 and this F.I.R. was lodged on 01.01.2022 while the applicant was nabbed at the very time of the occurrence and was handed over to the persons of the locality and police was also informed. It is further submitted that the victim was a married lady. Indeed, it was case of consensual physical relation and the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution story. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.01.2022.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that certainly victim was major and married lady but as per statement of the victim, the applicant after intruding in her house had raped her. It is further stated that the applicant in order to save himself had hidden himself in a box. Subsequently, in presence of the persons of locality, namely, Naimuddin Mian, Sakil Ansari and Nisar Mian, the applicant was brought out from the box which reflected that the victim was not consenting party, as she herself told to the persons of the locality that the applicant had hidden himself in a box and the applicant was handed over to the persons of the locality.
In view of the submissions made and materials on record, the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application filed by the petitioner should be allowed given the nature of the offence and the prosecution case.
Whether the medical evidence and victim statement rebut the defence claim of consensual relation and hiding in a box.
Sanjay Kumar Saha
The State of Jharkhand
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
