Vikash Kachhap v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUBHASH CHAND
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 315, 323, 341, 376(2)(n), 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 164
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the submissions made, the bail application of the petitioner/applicant is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner/applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of…
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------- For the Petitioner For the State -------- : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP Order No.07/Dated: 13th August, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Vikash Kachhap with a prayer to release on bail in connection with Hindpiri P.S. Case No. 27 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 922 of 2024, registered under section 376(2)(n)/341/323/504/506/315/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
The FIR of this case was lodged by the victim herself with these allegations that the informant had been doing the job of maid in the house of Martin Kachhap for the last two years and also was tenant in the very house and no rent was paid by her because she was being there a maid. The son of Martin Kachhap having allured her to marry continuously sexually exploited her, she also became pregnant. Her pregnancy was tried to be terminated which she opposed and same could not be done upon her. The mother and sister of Vikas Kachhap after verification of pregnancy test forced her to take a medicine to terminate pregnancy, even both made her admit to the nursing home. However, she managed to flee away from there. He ultimately refused to marry with the informant.
This FIR was registered the offence under Sections 376(2)(n)/341/323/504/506/315/34 of the I.P.C. and the charge sheet was filed under Section 376(2)(n) against the petitioner, while in FIR there were seven accused persons. Thereafter, the Court concerned took cognizance against the 1 petitioner for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C.
As per allegations made in the FIR, the age of victim is shown 21 years and since two years she had been doing job as maid in the house of the petitioner. At that time too, victim was a major being 19 years old. Victim in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. corroborated the allegations made in the FIR itself. In view of the statement of independent witnesses, namely, Sudhir Kujur, Manjeet Raj Kachhap @ Vicky and Ashish James, this fact is corroborated that there was love affair between the victim and the petitioner. As such, the physical relations which was established between the two were consensual.
In view of the submissions made, the bail application of the petitioner/applicant is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner/applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in the aforesaid case. (Subhash Chand, J.) Vedanti/- 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.