Mukesh Mahato Alias Mukesh Kumar Mahato Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Mukesh Mahato Alias Mukesh Kumar Mahato Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and, on surrender, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2396/2022, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2396/2022, notwithstanding the allegations of sexual exploitation made against him by the complainant.

Court's answer

Regard being had to the allegations levelled by the complainant, which do not rule out the possibility of a false implication, and to the absurdity of the story being apparent from the complaint petition itself on account of the silence of the complainant, the court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and, on surrender, to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2396/2022, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key takeaways

Since the mother and brother of opposite party no. 2 refused to accept notice per the service report, the court deemed the notice to be validly served and proceeded to hear the counsel for the petitioner and for the State; this is an ancillary procedural determination, not part of the substantive bail decision.obiter¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, A.B.A. No. 2334 of 2023 (decided 13.09.2024 by Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.). Anticipatory bail was granted to Mukesh Mahato @ Mukesh Kumar Mahato, who apprehended arrest in Complaint Case No. 2396/2022 (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad) instituted by Gudiya Devi. The complaint alleged that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- lent to the petitioner by the complainant's husband was never repaid, that on 10.02.2021, when the complainant visited his house demanding the money while her husband was away in Chennai, the petitioner took advantage of her and established physical relationship, that further sexual relations followed causing pregnancy and delivery of a child, and that disclosure of these facts to the husband on his return led to the complaint. The petitioner's counsel argued the case was one of consensual sex and that the complaint was lodged merely to pressurise return of the loan. Finding that the allegations did not rule out the possibility of false implication and that the complainant's prolonged silence made the story apparently absurd, the court allowed the application: the petitioner is to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks and, on surrender, be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2334 of 2023

Mukesh Mahato @ Mukesh Kumar Mahato, S/o Durga Mahato, R/o Village Parasbani, P.O. Maniadih, P.S. Maniadih, Dist: Dhanbad … … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Gudiya Devi, W/o Umesh Mahato, R/o Village: Bangaro, P.O. & P.S. Maniyadih, District: Dhanbad at present residing at Banipura, P.O. + P.S. Bagador, Distt.- Hazaribagh

… … Opposite Parties

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. -------

07/13.09.2024 It appears from the service report that the mother and brother of the opposite party no. 2 have refused to accept notice.

The notice is, therefore, deemed to be validly served. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2396/2022.

It has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,000/was extended as a loan by the husband of the complainant to the petitioner who had assured that the amount shall be returned within two months. It has further been alleged that on 10.02.2021 when the complainant went to the house of the petitioner for demand of the money the petitioner by taking advantage of her had established physical relationship with her. It has further been alleged that on several occasions thereafter the petitioner had established sexual relationship with the complainant as a result of which, she become pregnant and ultimately she delivered a child. Since the husband of the complainant had gone to Chennai in the month of November, 2020 in search of a job and in the meantime such incidents had occurred and when the husband of the complainant returned back he wanted to know about the child at which the

complainant had disclosed the entire facts which ultimately resulted in the institution of the complaint case.

It has been submitted by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that only in order to pressurize the petitioner to return back the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was extended to him as loan by the husband of the complainant the complaint case has been instituted. It has further been submitted that though it has been alleged that on several occasions sexual relationship was established by the petitioner with the complainant but the said fact was never disclosed by the complainant. In fact, according to Mr. Tewari it is apparently a case of consensual sex between the petitioner and the complainant.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Regard being had to the allegations leveled by the complainant which does not rule out the possibility of a false implication and the absurdity of the story being apparent from the complaint petition itself on account of the silence on the part of the complainant, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 2396/2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

A. Sanga/-

-2-