Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Shekh Nurwa @ Shekh Nurul @ Md. Nurul - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 10466 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 376 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 164 – Offence of Rape – Anticipatory bail – Held, It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in matter of granting anticipatory bail – It is submitted that the petitioner may be extended privilege of anticipatory bail - It appears that there is direct allegation against petitioner that he had committed rape with the victim-minor girl and charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner for offence – Alleged compromise has no relevancy in such a heinous and non-compoundable offences – Anticipatory bail is rejected.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 100 of 2022 instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. As per the written report of the informant allegation is that on 05.07.2022 at about 07:00 pm when the informant was going to shop, the petitioner came and took her towards field and forcibly committed rape upon her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter. Victim is the major girl and she has not stated anything in her statement under Section 164 CrPC about the commission of the sexual intercourse with her. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. It appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he had committed rape with the victim-minor girl and charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04 of the POCSO Act. The alleged compromise has no relevancy in such a heinous and non-compoundable offences.
7. Considering the gravity of offence and surety of punishment and direct involvement of the petitioner in alleged serious offence, I am not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Anticipatory bail is not a right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious allegations where custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the investigation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the necessity for custodial interrogation and the willingness of the applicant to cooperate with the investigation in grant....
The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
