MD. AKRAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is an accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376/386/387 IPC. However, charge-sheet has been submitted only under Section 376 IPC.

(3.) Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. There is vital contradiction between the written report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The informant has disclosed her age as 21 years in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There were physical relationships between the petitioner and the informant for the last five years. The informant has herself stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C that she continued to have physical relationships with the petitioner after she was divorced. She has also stated that when she requested the petitioner for solemnizing marriage with her, he made demand of Rs.10,000/- from her. It would thus be evident that the only reason for lodging of the present FIR by the informant is that the petitioner refused to marry her on non-fulfilment of certain demand. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.04.2019 and as such he may be given the privilege of regular bail. Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail.