Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 819 (JHR)

Mohammad Azim @ Azim v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-30

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 357 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per FIR, allegation is that petitioner has established sexual relationship with the informant on false assurance of solemnization of marriage. 4. 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 with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per FIR, the victim has solemnized marriage in the year 2010 with one Shohrab Aaman but her husband was drunker and she developed intimacy with petitioner and also got divorce from her husband and started living with petitioner. Petitioner has not forcibly established sexual intercourse with her rather there was consensual sexual relationship between parties. Both the parties are major. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied the order Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 886 and prayed for privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are allegations of serious offence against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. It appears that both parties are major and there was consensual sexual relationship between them. The informant has never raised any objection against sexual indulgence. In the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 886 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “3. It is admitted case of the complainant that she was in a relationship with the appellant for a period of four years. It is admitted by Mr. Himanshu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 2/complainant that when the relationship started, she was 21 years of age. 4. Where the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. It is admitted by Mr. Himanshu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 2/complainant that when the relationship started, she was 21 years of age. 4. Where the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and the ratio of order passed in the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajsthan and Another (supra). I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail of petitioner. 8. It is made clear that observations in the present order are only for the purposes of deciding the pre-arrest bail application. The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order.” 9. In view of the above facts, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JMFC, Ranchi in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 357 of 2022 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.