ARJUN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for release on bail filed by the petitioner. In Special Case No. 9/2001, the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, passed an order on 4.8.2001 rejecting the bail application of the petitioner for the offence under Section 376. IPC and 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. I am mainly concerned with the offence registered under Section 376, IPC, because admittedly on the facts, is a very very good case made out for bail under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) IN so far as the allegation made under Section 376, IPC is concerned, the admitted case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, Saraswati Kumari Sagar, lodged a written complaint that she and the accused Arjun Gupta, had developed intimacy, relationship and even love affair. On 9.4.2001, when Manju Singh, the head of the family where she was working as maid -servant, was out of Jamshedpur, the accused came inside the house and had sexual intercourse with her. During the course of such sexual intercourse, he promised to her that he would marry her. Thereafter, both the prosecutrix and the accused kept on meeting with each other.

(3.) IN deciding a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court or the Court of Sessions has to take into account the basic principle as to whether, on a prima facie reading of the material on record, can it be said that the accused has ex facie committed the offence for which he has been charged. It is the duty of a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take into consideration all such relevant facts which might go to either suggest that the accused might have committed an offence or that apparently and prima facie he does not appear to have committed any such offence.