Anikesh Murmu vs State of Jharkhand

The present anticipatory bail application is taken up today through Video conferencing.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376/323/313/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The informant is a major lady aged about 24 years, whereas the age of the petitioner is 19 years. Perusal of the written report of the informant would itself suggest that she was a consenting party. The petitioner had made sexual intercourse with the informant with her consent. Hence, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. There is no medical report to substantiate the allegation of commission of rape against the petitioner. The offence under Section 313 IPC is also not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The other offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned A.P.P. while opposing the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he sexually exploited the informant (the victim) on the pretext of marriage. Hence, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.