Allowed

Anil Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024B.A./6817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a case under sections 376 and 384 IPC arising from allegations of sexual exploitation of a married woman whose husband was serving in the Army. Court noted the victim is a major and the physical relations were consensual, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6817 of 2024

¶2

Anil Kumar Pandey, aged about 58 years, Son of late Laxman Pandey, Resident of Village Godarma Kala, PO & PS Rehla, District Palamau, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP -------05/22.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for

¶7

the State.

¶8

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant– Anil Kumar Pandey with prayer to release on bail in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 402 of 2023 registered under sections 376 and 384 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.

¶9

The FIR of this case was lodged against the present petitioner upon complaint by the victim herself with these allegations that on 18.05.2021 the informant was suffering from corona and the husband of the informant was in Army and she was alone at the house. The present petitioner took her to Narayan Hospital, Medininagar for treatment. When she recovered from the ailment he asked her to accompany him to his inlaws house at Baralota. The informant had faith upon the petitioner. On 25.08.2021 he again brought her for treatment and on that day being late he also asked her to accompany to his inlaws house at Baralota. On that day at 11 O'clock the present petitioner with bad intention taking advantage of being alone at his inlaws house, entered in the room of the informant and established physical relation with her and also stated that if the alarm is raised he would kill her and also make viral her nude video. Since the husband of informant were in Army taking the advantage of the same and

¶10

the present petitioner continued to sexually exploit the informant and continued to chat her on whatsapp hence this FIR was lodged.

¶11

From the very allegations made in FIR itself, the informant victim is major and married lady. She established physical relation with the petitioner consensually.

¶12

In view of the above, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in aforesaid case.

¶13

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶14

RKM

¶15

Anil Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pandey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaura Karwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Premkant Lohra Alias Prem Kant Lohra Alias Prem Kumar Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pandu Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hare Krishna Swansi Vs the State Ofjharkhand