Jharkhand High Court
Bishundhari Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 6 January, 2021
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 6855 of 2020
....
Bishundhari Prasad .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr.Diwakar Jha, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
....
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
03/06.01.2021 The petitioner is accused in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.30 of 2020 registered under Section 376 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as there was a financial dispute between the parties. The husband of the informant has taken Rs.50,000.- as loan from this accused and out of which Rs.20,000/- has been returned and rest Rs.30,000/- was pending and on being pressurized, this false case has been lodged against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in the medical report, there is no proof of rape. There is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Perused the material available on record, it appears that there is directed and specific allegation of sexual assault against this applicant and the victim has supported the allegation in her statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also. Considering the material available on record, I find that there is direct allegation against this applicant and further the victim is aged about 25 years. There is two days delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is not fatal in such cases and the medical report has no consequences as the victim has supported the allegation made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement given under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. In view of above consideration, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/