Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Dilip Kumar Mandal @ Dilip Mandal, S/o Late Parhlad Mandal @ Pahlan Mandal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.632 of 2024
Decided On : 28-02-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP., Ms. Tanu Kumari, Amicus Curiae.
Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases where prior investigations established insufficient evidence supporting rape allegations, even with subsequent prima facie findings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 342 and 376/34 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Anticipatory bail application rejected by Special Judge - Allegations of rape and prior FIR linked to land dispute - Police initially found no evidence in prior investigation - Prima facie case emerged during inquiry by trial court based on victim's statement - Anticipatory bail granted upon appeal. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with rape related to a land dispute; earlier FIR acquitted him due to lack of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded the prima facie case against the appellant warranted a reconsideration of bail.
Issues: The court addressed the evidentiary standards evolving from previous investigations and land dispute context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that previous police findings warranted consideration while evaluating the current prima facie case established during inquiry by the trial court.
Result: The order of the trial court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of allegations and earlier proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. discussion on inconsistencies in evidence (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments presented by counsel (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. defense argues prior investigations undermine current allegations. (Para 11) |
| 5. court's decision to grant bail (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the court (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Pratiush Lala appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as also learned Amicus Ms. Tanu Kumari, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in C.P. Case No. 3686 of 2018, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 323 of 2018, ABP No. 2190 of 2024 by Special Judge SC/ST Court, Dhanbad, by which prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, where the accused appellant has been charged for the offences punishable under sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 2015 pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad.
3. The allegation against the appellant is that he had committed rape upon the victim /complainant along with two accused persons namely Dinesh Mandal and Paigam Ansari.
4. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that on earlier occasion, an FIR was instituted by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 as far back as in the year 2014 vide Dhanbad PS Case No.658 of 2014 dated 26.6.2014 for the offences under Sections 34 2, 376/34 of IPC and Section 4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the three accused persons including this appellant.
5. It has further been submitted that the police after completion of investigation, submitted the final report on 17.06.2018 absolving all the accused persons including this appellant for want of evidence and thereafter, the protest- cum-complaint petition was filed by the victim/respondent No.2, which was registered vide C.P. Case No.3686 of 2018 and the learned trial court after holding the enquiry, found prima facie case against three accused persons including this appellant as one of them for the offences punishable under Sections 34 2, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 02.08.2022 and thereafter this appellant had preferred the anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 01.08.2024, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred.
6. It has been submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution, as evident from the earlier FIR that there was land dispute between the parties and the complainant-respondent No.2 had gone with the appellant voluntarily and willingly in order to resolve the dispute amicably and it appears that when the land dispute could not be resolved amicably, then the FIR was instituted.
7. It has further been pointed out that the police after thorough investigation in the earlier instituted FIR has found the entire case false and the final report submitted by the police, where it appears that there was land dispute between the father of the informant-victim and co-accused Dilip Mandal.
8. Further it has been pointed out that the learned trial court only on the basis of the versions of the victim on SA and her mother as Enquiry Witness No.1 had taken the cognizance by holding prima facie case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 34 2, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, without appreciating the facts in totality, when on the earlier occasion, on the same sets of facts and evidence, the final report was submitted finding that it was a land dispute.
9. Further it has also been pointed out that the victim was a woman aged 22 years in the year 2014 and in the light of the admitted case of the prosecution th
