The court granted anticipatory bail, setting aside the trial court's rejection due to insufficient evidence against the accused in a rape allegation, especially considering prior investigations concluded the case was false.

JUDGMENT :

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as also learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Tanu Kumari, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in C.P. Case No. 3686 of 2018, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 323 of 2018, passed in ABP No. 4080 of 2023 by Special Judge SC/ST Court, Dhanbad, for the offences punishable under sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, by which the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that he had committed rape upon the victim /complainant along with two accused persons namely Dilip 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 of 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 the 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 21.12.2023, 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 and 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, which is annexure-3 to this criminal appeal, 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 that this appellant and the complainant was acquainted with each other with respect to the sale and purchase of the land as e