AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 214 wordsSanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.03/2024, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 354(D), 376(2)(n), 501, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is a major girl and the friendship was developed and, thereafter, relationship was established. He submits that the allegations under Section 376(2)(n) and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that very heinous allegation is made out against the petitioner.
Looking into the contents of the FIR, the Court finds that the girl has resisted many times and in spite of that, forcefully relationship was established and threatening was also made of viral the videos. The family members were also threatened.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.