Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 774 of 2024

Dilip Pathak @ Dilip Kumar Pathak, aged about 40 years, Son of Brankim Chander Pathak, Residnet of Vishnupuri, Tril Road, Kokar, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Appellant Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Complainant/informant

¶6

…… Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶9

-------For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP --------

¶10

Order No. 09/ Dated: 11^th March, 2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned PP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶12

No-one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2. It appears from the previous orders that although the appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed by executing Vakalatnama but despite that no-one has appeared since last several dates.

¶13

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial CommissionerII-Cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. App. No.2249/2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.280 of 2024 registered under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and under Section 3(i)(w) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.

¶14

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the gist of the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. is that the informant being a major woman aged about 34 years had been in the physical relationship since last 3 months and then she made an allegation that the appellant committed rape with her by giving threatening to her since last three months by which she had become pregnant.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the entire allegations are false and fabricated in view of the fact that the

¶16

informant is a major woman aged about 34 years and as per the statements of the independent witnesses who have been examined by the I.O. during the course of the investigation namely, Shankar Roy & Badal Roy have totally falsified the case of the prosecution where neither the offence under SC/ST Act has been substantiated nor any offence under Section 376(2)(n) has been corroborated.

¶17

Further it has also been come into the case diary that both the appellant and the victim had been acquainted with each other for long period of time and the daughter of the informant was frequent visitor of the house of the appellant and therefore some dispute arose between the parties and this false case has been instituted by the informant against the appellant.

¶18

Further it has also been pointed out that the appellant is in custody since 29.06.2024 and charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no possibility of tampering the evidence at all and in this view of matter, it is submitted that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

While on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail stating that it is a case under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and 3(i)(w) of SC/ST/ (POA) Act, and therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail although he did not controvert this fact that the statements of the independent witnesses who have been examined by I.O. during investigation particularly, Shankar Roy and Badal Roy have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case including the case diary.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. App. No.2249 of 2024 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.280 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 774 of 2024

¶24

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶25

In consequence thereof, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial CommissionerII-Cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.280 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of

¶27

Basant/S.Das

¶28

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 774 of 2024

Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Sinha Alias Birendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikash Kumar Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shibu Mahto Alias Shivshankar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hemant Kumar Alias Hemant Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand