JOHN BENISCENT SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumka(T) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 instituted under Ss. 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

(2.) As per FIR, allegation is that the informant-victim lady who is major, was studying in S.P. College, Dumka, where the petitioner was also studying. In course of time, both petitioner and the informant came in contact and fell in love-affairs with each other. It is further alleged that both the petitioner and the informant used to visit forest place and natural scene. It is alleged that petitioner has established physical relationship on false assurance of solemnisation of marriage with her. It is further alleged that both the informant and petitioner was in live-in- relationship since April, 2012 to August, 2016 and thereafter from 4th September to 16/12/2021. It is further alleged that due to cohabitation between the petitioner and the informant, she became pregnant twice but at the instance of petitioner, she got anti-pregnancy medicines causing her abortion. Ultimately, in the year 2021, petitioner has solemnized marriage with another girl and flatly denied to solemnize marriage with the informant-victim lady. Prior to lodging this case, the informant has reported the matter to Mahila P.S., Dumka for necessary action against the petitioner 3/12/2021 for the offence under Sec. 376 of IPC and her medical examination was also conducted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that both the petitioner and the informant were in live-in-relation from the year 2012 to 2016 but the informant solemnized marriage with one Ramjeet Murmu and started living with him in the year 2016. Hence, it is falsely alleged that from August, 2016 to December, 2021, petitioner was in live-in-relation with the informant. It is further submitted that during investigation, on 23/12/2021, the informant submitted application before the concerned Investigating Officer, Mahila Police Station, Dumka stating therein that she is married lady and her marriage is still subsisting, hence, no further action be taken on her application. Thereafter, the concerned Investigating Officer had again recorded statement of the informant. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him by the court below and shall not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati vs. Mr. Himanshu Sharma reported in Cr.Appeal No.962 of 2022 arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.5326 of 2022 dtd. 14/7/2022.