Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, & Ors.

Instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail, during pendency of the appeal.

Heard counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is very apparent from exhibit-2 itself that Medical Board has come to the conclusion that there is no sign of rape and age of the victim is about 14 to 16 years, thus, clearly cast a doubt on the entire prosecution case and on this ground alone, the appellant deserves bail during pendency of the instant appeal. Counsel has further submitted that victim has a habit of lodging of the false case and extracting money from the persons. Counsel has further submitted that statement of Doctor PW-8 is totally bellied the version of the victim and her mother, as such, the medical evidence and ocular evidence are inconsistency in nature regarding injury and sign of rape. Counsel has further submitted that not only the Doctor but also the neighbours and villagers of the informant has not supported the case of the prosecution. Counsel, while referring the depositions of the defence witnesses, has submitted that appellant did not commit rape. Counsel has further submitted that there is delay of three days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained and that, after the occurrence, mother had gone to the house of the appellant instead of going to police station, which creates some doubt, why she had gone there.

Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the bail of the appellant, during pendency of this appeal and has submitted that victim has supported the case throughout and also in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that it is a heinous crime against a young girl, aged about 14 to 16 years. Appellant is in custody for about one year and eight months only. Therefore, appellant does not deserve bail, during pendency of this appeal.

Having heard counsels for both the sides, going through the records on hand and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant, named above, at this stage.

Prayer for bail of the appellant stands rejected.

Accordingly, I.A. (Cr.) No. 7041 of 2016 stands disposed of.