Thutha Kharia vs The State of Bihar( Now Jharkhand)

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.04/16, corresponding to G.R. No.661 of 2016, registered under Sections 406, 420, 376, 354 A(i), 354(D)/34 of the IPC.

The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by one Shobha Kumari, wherein it is alleged that she was residing in the house of Karu Singh on rent and was preparing for competitive examinations. In the meantime, she came in contact with the petitioner, Gautam Kumar through facebook. Thereafter, parents of the petitioner went to her village and met her parents for marriage and money was demanded as a dowry and also for providing service to the informant. Further, it was alleged that Rs.6,00,000/- was given in April 2015 and the marriage of the informant with the petitioner was fixed and the petitioner took her to Delhi for providing a job, where she was forcibly raped by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner started to live with her in her rental house. It is further stated that on 12.07.2015 vermilion was put on her "MANG" in a temple and said that the marriage has been solemnized. It is further submitted that when she told the petitioner to marry with her, the petitioner refused and fled away. On these allegations, the present case has been lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant is an educated lady and is aged about 22 years and was living in relationship with the petitioner with her free will and consent and during investigation, the said fact has been admitted by the landlord, where they were residing and hence, no case is made out for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC against the petitioner. It is further submitted that one Mukesh Kumar Paswan had filed a Complaint case No.1568/16 against the complainant alleging therein that the prosecutrix is P.O. in Bank of India and has taken Rs.70,000/- for providing a job of driver to Mukesh Kumar Paswan and the conduct of the prosecutrix is not fair and hence the petitioner deserves the privilege of the anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the case diary at para 8, wherein the I.O. has recorded the statement of the landlord, Karu Singh, has admitted that prosecutrix and the petitioner was residing as husband and wife in his house as tenant and the prosecutrix disclosed to his wife that the petitioner has made a vulgar video and has extorted money from the prosecutrix by blackmailing her and also petitioner has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- for providing a job to the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded, wherein she has supported the allegations and alleged that the petitioner has committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. It is also submitted that the petitioner has obtained money on the pretext of marriage and for providing a job to her, but failed to do so. So, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after going through the records and in view of the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

The petitioner, if so advised, may move for regular bail before the court below and the court below shall consider the case on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.