Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2020
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6144 of 2020
-------
Deepak Kumar Das ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Gouri Devi ... ... Opposite Parties
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through- Video Conferencing
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
-------
02/07.12.2020 Heard Mr. Vijay Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored. The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 46/2020.
It has been alleged that the petitioner by mixing some intoxicating substance in her tea had made the informant unconscious and after removing her clothes had made an MMS. It has further been alleged that on 12.03.2020 Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by the petitioner and he had also asked her to have physical relationship with her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false and fabricated and there has been a delay of more than two months in instituting the First Information Report. He has further submitted that the matter has been compromised and there is nothing on record to indicate that an MMS was indeed prepared of the informant.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.
So far as the compromise which has much been stressed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the same seems to have been entered into between the petitioner and the husband of the informant. The signature of the informant is absent and therefore it would appear that the informant still sticks to the allegations which have been levelled by her in the First Information Report. It -2- further appears from the impugned order that witnesses have supported the threatening given by the petitioner to the informant regarding uploading of the MMS on Facebook.
On consideration of the nature of allegations and the role played by the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application accordingly stands rejected.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-