Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Dinesh Prasad Haiwai @ Ginesh Gupta @ Dinesh Prasad Gupta @ Dinesh Pd. Halwai, S/o Late Bansi Saw – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 Prevent
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 concl....
Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases where prior investigations established insufficient evidence supporting rape allegations, even with subsequent prima facie findings.
The mere existence of a conflict involving SC/ST individuals does not automatically substantiate violations under the SC/ST Act when the dispute is fundamentally about land rights.
The delay in filing a complaint raises doubts about credibility; anticipatory bail granted in light of insufficient evidence and potential for fabricated allegations.
The court considered the behavior and history of the complainant's party in filing false complaints as influential in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case exists under the SC/ST Act, based on judicial discretion and the specifics of the case.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when allegations do not pertain to SC/ST status but arise from a land dispute.
Absence of specific allegations against the appellant led to a quashing of the rejection of anticipatory bail, highlighting the need for concrete evidence in cases under the SC/ST Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the court to consider relevant allegations and apply stringent conditions when granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involvi....
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
