Petitioner challenged bail refusal in a Sessions Trial for rape and related offences. Court rejected bail, directing trial completion within three months.
Petitioner rejected on bail; trial to conclude within three months.
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.3028 of 2023
Nilesh Singh Kuntia … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.
Order No.04 Dated- 07.07.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sessions Trial (S. T.) Case No. 25 of 2023 arising out of Simdega Mahila P. S. Case No. 18 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 80 of 2022 registered under sections 376/313/323/504 of Indian Penal Code.
As per FIR, allegation is that the informant met with the petitioner in the month of June, 2019 through common friend. They exchanged their mobile number and started talking with each other. It is alleged that the petitioner entered into the informant’s room and committed rape upon her against her will. Again at Chaibasa the petitioner had also made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and when she became pregnant, the petitioner administered her medicine due to which her pregnancy was terminated and lastly the petitioner declined to marry her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 19.01.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Earlier the trial report was called for from the learned trial court from which it appears that charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 376, 313, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the
-2-
case is pending for prosecution evidence. In this case out of eleven witnesses, six witnesses have been examined including the victim.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am not inclined to release the above named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within three months, failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a rape accusation where the trial is pending for prosecution evidence.
Nilesh Singh Kuntia
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court