The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Abhi Kumar @ Agindar Kumar Mandal B.A .No. 9988 of 2023 … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA … … Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mrs. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate -------- 07 /23.02.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under sections 376, 420, 354, 384, 506, 504, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is civil dispute between the parties and due to this reason, the present case has been filed by the informant to create pressure against the petitioner. Counsel has then submitted that on perusal of the FIR, it would appear that the prosecutrix/informant had made no effort to inform the police or her husband when she was allegedly being ravished or harassed and the same is hard to believe as everyone is having mobile phone these days. It is further submitted that the informant is a major lady, capable to understand what is wrong and right and there is no question of inducement for establishing sexual relationship and the allegation does not seem to be convincing. It is further submitted that several criminal and civil cases are pending between the informant or her family member and the petitioner and co-accused persons and that too may be ground for lodging the current case. It is further pointed out that that occurrence is said to be of the year 2019 while the complaint case is instituted in the year 2021, the long delay of two years would itself invalidate the allegations. It is further submitted that the civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal case between the parties. Moreover, counsel has stated that one of the co-accused, namely, Md. Sanjar @ Piyush Singh has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 8747 of 2022 vide order dated 30.08.2022 and, therefore, on similar circumstances, the petitioner may also be granted the privilege of bail. Moreover, counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in custody from -2- 23.06.2021 and, therefore, he has already spent sufficient time in custody and, therefore, he may be allowed the privilege of bail also on this basis. It is further submitted that as per the report that was called for, charge has been framed on 30.06.2023 and there are total eleven charge sheeted witnesses, none of whom has been examined till date and, therefore, it is very unlikely that the trial is to be concluded any time soon, therefore, on this ground also the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of bail. The learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and pointed out that the petitioner is a person of dubious character and on the basis of his Aadhar cards, counsel has pointed out from his counter affidavit where he has attached two Aadhar cards of the petitioner and submitted that this unique identity card can not be owned in two sets because only one is allowed or permitted and pointed out that in one of the Aadhar Card of petitioner, his name is written as Abhi Kumar son of Rambilash Singh and his address is given as Morabadi, Ranchi, Jharkhand and the Aadhar Number is given as “275291495679”, in another Aadhar Card his name is written as Agindar Kumar Mandal son of Ram Bilash Mandal and his address is given as Chiroundi, Tagore Hill Road, Bariyatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, and Aadhar Number is given as “424997140439” and therefore, counsel says that in the second Aadhar card the name of the person is different, the name of the father of the person is different and also the address is different and the Aadhar Number is also different that itself indicates the dubious nature of the person. Thereafter, counsel for the informant has pointed out from Annexure- E series, by which the identity card of the petitioner is attached where the name of the petitioner is shown as Abhi Kumar and he has been shown as Police Sub Inspector. Counsel says that using this identity of police sub inspector, petitioner used to put pressure and commit crime against innocent persons and victims. Counsel further pointed out from Annexure-E series where he has attached another identity card wherein petitioner has shown himself as Abhi Kumar, who is a business head and pointed out that it is not possible that a police sub inspector will also be a business head at the same time. Counsel also shows from Annexure-C, booking in hotel Partk Street which was done in the name of petitioner and it is said that this is the place where the incident against the informant has taken place, therefore, the petitioner is -3- fully involved in such doings. Counsel has further pointed to the bond paper (Annexure-A) which petitioner himself has signed and also in para 7 of the bond paper petitioner has stated that he used to deposite the money taken from the informant in ICICI Bank and then through internet banking they used to take out the money and distribute amongst themselves, therefore, it is apparent and obvious that the petitioner has been also extracting money. Counsel has demonstrated from para no. 8 of the bond paper that a cheque amounting to Rs. 4500000/- ( Rs. Forty five lakh only) was made out in the name of the informant which was signed by the petitioner himself. Counsel has attached the photocopy of the cheque amounting to Rs. 4500000/- signed by the petitioner as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Counsel has further stated that the money used to be deposited by the petitioner himself but he has himself stated that in the ICICI Bank the money was deposited so it could be withdrawn by himself. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petition and supported the grounds laid down by the learned counsel for the informant. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner, above named, is rejected at this stage. Sharda/ (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)