Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rajiv Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 16 November, 2022

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              A.B.A. No. 8691 of 2022
                                     ------
       Rajiv Kumar                  ....    .... ....   Petitioner
                              Versus
       The State of Jharkhand       ....    .... .... Opposite Party

       CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

       For the Petitioner       : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
       For the State            : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, A.P.P.
       For the Informant        : Mr. Rishav, Advocate
       Oral Order
       04/ Dated :16.11.2022

The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 71 of 2020 for the offence registered under Sections 376, 354C, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, is pressed into motion.

As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was acquainted with the wife of this petitioner since 2017 and whenever she had to go some other place, she used to stay in the house of the accused and it was during this period on one morning, the petitioner had recorded video while she was taking bath in his house. Later on by threatening to make the video viral, he used to sexually exploit her and when she complained about this to her wife, she threatened her.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that she is a major lady aged 24 years and no date and time has been mentioned in the F.I.R. of the said incidence. On these allegations, offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. will not be made out and as far as the offence under Section 354C is concerned that is bailable in nature. No offence under Section I.T. Act has been alleged with regard to recording of the bathing seen of the prosecutrix.

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of the prosecutrix has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that in the case diary, during investigation, video recording from the mobile of the petitioner has been found.

Considering the submissions made, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as and when required and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit