CR. MISC./35445/2020 of DHANANJAY MANDAL @ BOKU Vs The State of Bihar on 23 December 2020

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, learned counselfor the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kuma, Additional PublicProsecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection withBhawanipur PS Case No. 136/2019 registered for the offencepunishable under Section 376 of the IPC.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, isthat the informant had gone to the temple leaving behind hiswife and younger sister in his home and the petitioner takingadvantage of the fact that wife of the informant was alone, tookher forcibly in the banana field and committed rape upon her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has notcommitted any offence in the manner alleged. Learned counselfurther submits that the FIR is highly improbable, inasmuch as, perwez U

T

the petitioner has, allegedly, committed rape in a broad day lightin the village and, it is strange that nobody has seen theoccurrence. Learned counsel next submits that medicalexamination of the victim lady was conducted on 12.08.2019and the doctor has not found any sign of rape. Learned counselrelying upon the statement of the victim lady recorded underSection 164 CrPC, submits that she has given the statementunder pressure and falsely implicated the petitioner in thepresent case of rape.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by theparties and taking into consideration the material on record andthe fact that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded underSection 164 CrPC, in which she has, categorically, stated thatthe petitioner has committed rape upon her, I am not inclined togrant regular bail to the petitioner. The same is, hereby, rejected.

6. However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew hisprayer for bail after one year from today, if the trial does notshow any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)