Pintu Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Topchanchi

P.S. Case No. 72 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1771 of 2016 for the offence

under sections 366A, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 4,

5 and 6 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The prosecution case, in short, is that, initially C.P. Case No. 1066 of 2016

was filed by the complainant?Satyadev Mahto which was transferred under

section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police station for institution of the case which was

registered as Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 72 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.

1771 of 2016. It is alleged by the informant/complainant that while his wife

was away to Mathadih to meet her elder daughter, the informant returned home

at night and found that his minor daughter Holika Kumari aged about 16 years,

was missing. It is further alleged that the daughter of the informant returned

home in the evening of next day and after query, she revealed that on

25.12.2015 at about 5.00 p.m Nitesh Kumar Mahto(petitioner) came home and

informed that her mother had called her to Mathadih, as her sister was not well.

The daughter of the informant/complainant left with the petitioner but instead

of bringing her to Mathadih, the petitioner brought her to Gomoh Station,

Whether the petitioner asked her to marry with him and threatened to kill

incase, she informs anyone about the same, the daughter of the informant got

scared and started crying and she insisted upon the accused instead of that, he

took her to Durga Mandir, Gomoh and put vermilion on her head. It is further

alleged that the petitioner reached there and said that he would keep Holika

but accused no. 3 pulled him and brought him home. It is further alleged that

about five to six days, the petitioner came at the residence of the informant and

threatened not to get Holika married elsewhere otherwise they will face dire

consequences. It is further alleged that on 20.01.2016 at about 7.00 p,m the

daughter of the informant went outside for call of nature and when she did not

return she was enquired and it was found that the petitioner again took away

her. At the police station the victim revealed that when she was going for call of

nature, the petitioner intercepted and took her to the forest of Shri Rampur

under the threat of killing her committed rape upon her. On the basis of these

allegations, the instant case has been lodged.

On 08.08.2017, petitioner and O.P Nos. 2 & 3 were physically present

along with learned counsels and in their presence possibility of framing scheme

for rehabilitation to the victim was made, but could not succeeded and the

matter was to be heard on merit and accordingly, the same is hereby heard on

merit.

Pressing the anticipatory bail application, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that no case under section 376 I.P.C is made out

against the petitioner as per statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C .

Further, it has been submitted that the victim girl has been medically examined

by the doctor in which the age of the victim was assessed as 18 years so no case

under section 366?A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.

Further, it has been submitted that the informant has instituted the present case

as a counter?blast to the case lodged by the father of the petitioner?Santosh

Mahto against the present informant/complainant wherein it has been alleged

that the present complainant and others have taken Rs. 1,50,000/? as a loan

from the father of the petitioner?Santosh Mahto but they did not return the

money rather the present informant/complainant had threatened the petitioner?

Santosh Mahto for dire consequence.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory

bail and filed counter?affidavit.

Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 &3 appeared and opposed the prayer

for anticipatory bail.

From perusal of statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C

it appears that the age of the victim has been assessed as 16 years and the

victim has fully supported the case of prospection and has stated that the

petitioner has forcibly committed rape upon her.

Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case and also considering

the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the

petitioner is hereby rejected. The petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before

the trial court within three weeks from the date of this order and pray for

regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court without being

prejudiced by this rejection order.