Dismissed¶22

Gorakh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Bail – Rape of a 40-year-old mentally retarded woman

Jharkhand HC23 Apr 2025Cr.A(SJ)/642/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gorakh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand; Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 642 of 2024; bail rejection affirmed; Patan P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024; M.C.A.No. 1519 of 2024; Sections 376(1), 341, 504, 506, 34 IPC; Section 3(1)(w) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of mentally retarded victim; Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau; delay of 11 days in FIR; surrender 30.07.2024; chargesheet filed; witnesses Rita Devi, Sushma Devi, Uday Singh; Justice Sanjay Prasad; decided 23.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the FIR, the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and the supporting statements of the Informant and witnesses in the Case Diary, the Court was not inclined to release the appellant on bail. ¶22

Gorakh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 642 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Gorakh Yadav, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Bisheshar Yadav @ Bisheshar Mahto, resident of VillKarar Kala, P.O. & P.S. Patan District-Palamau

¶4

..… Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Mother of Victim

….. Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶11

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : None

¶13

¶14

08/23.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant for setting aside the Order dated 13.08.2024, passed in M.C.A.No. 1519 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024 instituted under Sections 376(1), 341, 504, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (w) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶15

2. As per F.I.R. it is alleged that the Appellant, who is aged about 60 years, has forcibly committed rape upon the 40 year old mentally retarded daughter of the Informant by gaging her with a piece of cloth and tying her hands.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not

¶17

sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the Appellant is aged about 60 years and chargesheet has been submitted against him. It is submitted that there is delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the Appellant is suffering from various ailments. It is submitted that the Appellant has surrendered on 30.07.2024, hence, the Appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

4. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that though the Appellant is aged about 60 years, but he has forcibly committed rape on the victim lady, who is aged about 40 years and the victim lady is mentally retarded. It is submitted that the victim lady, during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the occurrence and several witnesses have also supported the allegation against the Appellant and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected.

¶19

5. Perused the records and considered the submission of both sides.

¶20

6. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the Appellant has committed rape upon the victim lady, who is mentally retarded by tying her hands and gaging her mouth with a piece of cloth. 7. It appears from the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that

¶21

the Appellant had removed all her clothes and thrashed her and had committed rape upon her. 8. It appears that the Informant, during her subsequent statement at Para 6 of the Case Diary has supported her case and the witnesses namely Rita Devi, Sushma Devi, Uday Singh, whose statements are recorded at Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the Case Diary respectively, have also supported the case of the Informant. Even the victim lady at paragraph 7 of the Case Diary has fully supported the case.

¶22

9. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to release the Appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Appellant is rejected and Order dated 13.08.2024, passed in M.C.A.No. 1519 of 2024, in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024, by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau is affirmed. 11. Thus, This Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 642 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶23

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶24

s.m.

Gorakh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhar Kumar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranbir Lohra Alias Ranvir Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmanand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pandav Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hare Ram Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand