Sanjay Kr. Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVNEET KUMAR
Outcome
Bail granted
petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 323, 341, 376, 504
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant : : : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate ----- 2/31.01.2022 The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter. Heard learned defence counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the State. The petitioner is accused in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.111 of 2021, registered under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504, 34 of IPC and Section 67 (A) of Information & Technology Act. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed with the victim under the pretext of providing job and after obtaining her private photos and videos , it has been made viral by the petitioner. Learned defence counsel further submitted that the allegations are false and fabricated as the victim is admittedly 28 years at the time of commission of offence and they were known to each other since 2018. It is submitted that the alleged incident of sexual assault (rape) is said to have been committed on 03.04.2021 and the FIR has been instituted on 25.10.2021 and no cogent explanation for the delay has been given. Further it has been pointed out by the Learned Counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, who has entered into appearance by filing counter affidavit on behalf of the informant stating therein that their relationship was consensual and due to misconception of fact the case was instituted and she does not support the case of the prosecution and she did not want to continue with this case also. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant through her learned counsel is available on record along with this bail application. It has further been submitted by learned defence counsel that petitioner is in jail
Operative part
26.10.2021 and the charge-sheet in this case has been submitted and hence the possibility of tempering with the evidence is very remote. On the other hand the learned APP opposed the prayer for bail. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the parties and under the facts and circumstances of this case, let this petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat, Chaibasa, in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.111 of 2021, subject to the conditions that an undertaking supported by affidavit shall be furnished before the concerned court on behalf of the petitioner consisting of the declarations that he will cooperate in the trail and he will appear before the court as and when required, further a copy of his Aadhar Card, residential address and mobile number shall also be submitted to the concerned court and he will not change the same without informing the court and further he will not tamper the evidences in this case, inter alia, either by inducement, promise or any threatening to the witnesses and he will not commit such offence during the pendency of this case along with other conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. R.Kumar (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 323, 341, 376, 504; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
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.