Pawan Singh Munda @ Pawan Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o Gobind Singh Munda v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5513 of 2024 ----- Pawan Singh Munda @ Pawan Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o Gobind Singh Munda @ Govind Singh, R/o Vill – Karkidih, P.O. Ichadih, P. S. – Tiruldih, Dist. Ranchi … … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party -------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner For the State ------ Order No. 05/Dated 15th October, 2024 : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Khunti (M) P.S. Case No. 4 of 2024, instituted under Sections 366/ 376(2)(n)/ 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr. Sourabh Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner started his argument by making submission that the allegation levelled against this petitioner is improbable one on account of fact that material available on record clearly shows that one cannot keep a person without her consent allegedly for more than three month that too at Ranchi as well as in Gujarat. 4. He further pointed out that even for the sake of argument, if the allegation levelled by victim is considered to be true, then also, as the victim was having ample opportunities to convey the misdeed of petitioner to concerned authorities but she did not choose to do so, this fact itself belie the story of prosecution. 1 5. He further pointed out that when it is alleged that victim was kept at Ranchi for a month during that period of time petitioner appeared for graduation examination which itself speaks a lot. Lastly, it has been submitted that victim is a married lady who left her matrimonial home of her own just couple of days after the marriage and thereafter reason best known to her, false allegation has been made. Upon the aforesaid premise, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that there is allegation against this petitioner that victim was sexually exploited for a long period of time, as such petitioner is not entitle for privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Perusal of record transpires that it is alleged that petitioner visited to the matrimonial home of victim and called her telephonically and she was ravished and thereafter forcibly taken in Bolero vehicle and brought to Ranchi and she was kept there for a month and thereafter she was taken to Gujarat where this petitioner was working in thread mill. Victim further allegedly stated that thereafter from the Gujarat, they came to parental home of petitioner then her parents as well as this petitioner misbehaved with her and refused to marry. It is not a case of prosecution that petitioner was minor at the time of alleged incident. 8. This Court carefully perused the case diary, where statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is available, and after perusing the same, it appears that husband as well as in-laws of the victim have stated in their respective statement that it is the victim who left her matrimonial home and she is/was not interested to live with them. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191 has 2 reiterated the law laid down in the case of Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 and categorically discussed about the consent in the case of rape and drawn the distinction between rape and consensual sex. Relevant para of the judgment reads as under - 17. Thus, Section 90 though does not define “consent”, but describes what is not “consent”. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. If the consent is given by the complainant under misconception of fact, it is vitiated. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act, but also after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was any consent or not is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances. 21. In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] , the Court has drawn a distinction between rape and consensual sex. This is a case of a prosecutrix aged 19 years at the time of the incident. She had an inclination towards the accused. The accused had been giving her assurances of the fact that he would get married to her. The prosecutrix, therefore, left her home voluntarily and of her own free will to go with the accused to get married to him. She called the accused on a phone number given to her by him, to ask him why he had not met her at the place that had been pre-decided by them. She also waited for him for a long time, and when he finally arrived, she went with him to a place called Karna Lake where they indulged in sexual intercourse. She did not raise any objection at that stage and made no complaints to anyone. Thereafter, she went to Kurukshetra with the accused, where she lived with his relatives. Here too, the prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the accused. She then, for some reason, went to live in the hostel at Kurukshetra University illegally, and once again came into contact with the accused at Birla Mandir there. Thereafter, she even proceeded with the accused to the old bus-stand in Kurukshetra, to leave for Ambala so that the two of them could get married at the court in Ambala. At the bus station, the accused was arrested by the police. The Court held that the physical relationship between the parties had clearly developed with the consent of the prosecutrix as there was neither a case of any resistance nor had she raised any complaint anywhere at any time, despite the fact that she had been living with the accused for several days and had travelled with him from one place to another. The Court further held that it is not possible to apprehend the circumstances in which a charge of deceit/rape can be levelled against the accused. 10. Considering the above legal proposition and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds some force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that victim stayed for couple of months at Ranchi and in Gujarat where petitioner used to do job in thread mill, therefore, undoubtedly, she was having an opportunity to approach public authority to make 3 complaint of misdeed allegedly committed by this petitioner but she did not choose to do so. 11. 12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court finds it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the 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 C.J.M., Khunti in connection with Khunti (M) P.S. Case No. 4 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. It is required to be noted that any observation made by this Court shall not be construed as comment on merit of the present case. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/- 4