The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2065 of 2024 ----- Bikash Kumar Gupta, aged about 34 years, S/o M.P. Gupta @ Mithilesh Gupta, R/o 10 Amit Society, Vijaya Nagar, Devlali, P.S. and P.S. - Devlali Camp, District – Nasik, Maharashtra - 422401… … … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- … … … Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant ------- :Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate : Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate : None : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate ------ Order No.09/Dated 03rd October, 2024 Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023, instituted under Sections 376(2)(n)/417/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an officer in Army and is having deep root in the society and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from justice or tempering with the evidence if admitted to anticipatory bail. He further pointed out that admittedly victim/informant was major and had come in contact with the petitioner while petitioner was posted at Ranchi through dating App namely “Tinder” in March, 2017 and from messages exchanged between petitioner and victim/informant, it is clear that petitioner was not acceptable to the family of victim/informant as victim/informant belongs to caste from general category whereas petitioner does not belong to that category. Learned counsel in support of his submission drew attention of this Court towards the SMS of 10th January, 2020. 3. Learned counsel further pointed out certain whatsapp messages exchanged between petitioner and victim/informant and submitted that from simple perusal of those messages it is clear that petitioner has played no role in alleged commission of offence. He further pointed out that certain photocopy of receipts which is available along the present anticipatory bail application, clearly shows that even parents of the petitioner purchased items for the purpose of marriage of petitioner and victim/informant but it is the victim/informant who got suspicious about the conduct/character of petitioner that petitioner is having contact with some other lady. He also pointed out that informant made complaint against this petitioner to army officials but upon enquiry army officials have found nothing against this petitioner. 4. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the victim/informant vehemently argued that victim/informant has been ravished on the false pretext of marriage, as such there is no consent on the part of victim/informant in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that it is the petitioner who exploited the victim/informant on pretext of marriage which he never intended to do and it is evident after going through the content of FIR and her 164 Cr.P.C statement. He also pointed out that victim/informant made an effort for solemnization of marriage with the petitioner but it is the petitioner who on the false pretext of marriage, committed rape on her person and later on refused to get marry with her. As far as inquiry by Army is concerned, it is submitted that there was no opportunity to victim/informant to participate in that enquiry proceeding as such no credence ought to be given by this Court to the said enquiry report. 6. Perusal of the record transpires that FIR in the present case has been lodged by the victim/informant stating therein that since March, 2017 victim/informant was knowing petitioner when he was posted at Ranchi and he made commitment for marriage with her and thereafter he made physical relation with her several times on this false pretext. 7. It has also been alleged that in April, 2021 when her father expired then this petitioner without her consent made physical relation with her. Thereafter, it is further alleged that both the family met in April, 2022 and date of marriage was fixed on 17.02.2023 and her mother made all preparation qua the booking of Hall and purchase of jewelleries also but in the month of September, 2022 this petitioner refused to marry victim/informant and he started meeting with other girl for the purpose of marriage. 8. This Court has carefully gone through the 164 Cr.PC statement of victim/informant in which she has stated that she got friendship with petitioner through “Tinder” dating App in the year 2017 and since 2017 to 2022, they dated and since 2017, they were in physical relation and at that time petitioner was Captain in Army and thereafter in August, 2017 he made commitment for marriage with victim/informant and thereafter he transferred to Dehradun in September, 2017 but whenever he visits at Ranchi in holidays, he used to make physical relation with the informant/victim and informant/victim came across the fact that this petitioner was having interaction with other girl through dating App. She further stated that on 26.04.2021 his father expired due to COVID and at that time petitioner was at Ranchi and in the night, he made physical relation despite informant/victim forbaded him as she was in state of shock and was taking medicine for cough. 9. Further, perusal of statement and other materials available on record reveals that family of both the sides met and finalized the date as 17.02.2023 for marriage but in September, 2022 petitioner denied for the marriage. It further appears that there is allegation against this petitioner that this petitioner was having contact with one lady with whom he was interested to marry. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that victim/informant was in contact with other boy through dating App “Tinder”. 10. From perusal of 164 Cr.PC statements, it appears that even after 17.02.2023 (date of marriage), informant/victim visited Nasik to the place of parents of this petitioner. It is admitted case that informant was major in the year 2017 and petitioner and informant met through dating App. 11. Plea has been made on behalf of the petitioner that it is the alleged conduct of victim/informant which prompted petitioner to deny the marriage whereas it is alleged on the part of victim/informant that it is the conduct of petitioner which made victim/informant suspicious. This Court has also gone through contents of messages exchanged between the informant and petitioner brought on record by petitioner. Copy of enquiry report of Army Officials is also available on record and this Court also perused the same. Both sides brought on record their respective receipts/papers regarding purchasing of ornaments and booking of hall for the purpose of marriage. 12. After perusing record it also transpires that petitioner has joined investigation by meeting I.O of the present case. Petitioner is in Army and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the justice. 13. After considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned trial court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/-