Jharkhand High Court
Bindeshwari Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2020
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION]
B.A. No. 7128 of 2020
Bindeshwari Manjhi ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P
03/Dated: 10/11/2020:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking to comply the order dated 28.09.2020 with regard to removal of the defect(s). Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 217/2020, for the offence registered under Section 376(2) I.P.C.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the Superintendent of Police, Palamau and Mr. Sunil Kumar, S.I, Chainpur, Palamau are present in the Court through virtual video conferencing.
It has been pointed out to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau that without recording the statement of the victim either through interpreter or through some signal, the police officer has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 354B IPC as the medical report has not supported the case of rape.
This Court has discussed the issue with the Superintendent of Police, Palamau in detail.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (I.P.S.), the Superintendent of Police, Palamau has admitted before this Court that from perusal of the case-diary, it appears that investigating officer, Jai Prakash Paswan, S.I. has not recorded the statement of the victim lady rather proceeded into the investigation on the basis of information given by the informant.
This Court has drawn attention of the Superintendent of Police, Palamau with regard to questions framed by this Court on 28.09.2020. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that no reply has been given by the answering opposite party i.e. State about the same.
-2-The superintendent of Police has submitted that in future they will file affidavit before this Court after duly vetting the same through the legal experts i.e. Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor so as to meet the query made by this Court.
Considering the same, the appearance of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (I.P.S.), the Superintendent of Police, Palamau and investigating officer, Mr. Sunil Kumar, S.I, Chainpur is dispensed with.
The matter is being taken up on merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initial FIR was lodged under Section 376(2) IPC, but the victim was not examined and without any medical evidence or without any evidence brought on record the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 354B IPC in the mechanical manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner is a police Constable and he was protesting against the illegal activities done by the informant and petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as such, petitioner who is in custody since 18.06.2020, may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but has fairly submitted that the statement/inquiry of the victim has not been done in this case and the police submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the information disclosed by the informant, who is admittedly not a victim of this case. None of the persons have been examined in this case, who have either seen the petitioner committing such offence and none of the persons have been exam- ined on behalf of the prosecution by the police, who have stated before the po- lice that victim has disclosed before them that petitioner has committed such heinous crime.
After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and since victim has not been examined and only on the basis of the statement given by the informant and police has submitted charge-sheet under Section 354B IPC, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner (Bindeshwari Manjhi), is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 217/2020 on the -3- following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/parivikar of the present case namely, Saroj Kumar Paswan, S/o Bindeshwar Paswan, R/o Village- Budhibir, P.O.
-Harinamarh, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Palamau (Jharkhand), who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card bearing No.4344 5226 0917 before this Court in the bail application.
Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card bearing No. 4344 5226 0917 of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.
(ii) Another bailor shall be brother/sister/brother/wife of the petitioner.
(iii) The Jail Authority shall release the petitioner only after his medical check- up.
(iv) The Civil Surgeon, Palamau is directed to medically examine the petitioner at the time of his release and if require, petitioner shall be taken for quarantine, but if no such requirement is there, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(v) Petitioner shall also comply with all the guidelines issued by the Government to meet the challenges of Covid-19, as the country is passing through Pandemic of Covid-19.
( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/R.S.