- (1.) 1. BAIL application filed by petitioner Sheetal Kumar Mishra in connection with Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 107 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1164 of 2012 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi is moved by Sri B.M. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri T.N. Verma, learned Additional PP.
(2.) IT is alleged that petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is submitted that petitioner is a zonal manager of Indusind Bank. It is further submitted that prosecutrix approached him for grant of loan and when petitioner refused to sanction loan, he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the lady and petitioner were examined medically, but no sign of rape was found. It is also submitted that prosecutrix is a lady of easy virtue and she is in habit of falsely implicating different persons in rape cases. It is further submitted that husband of prosecutrix also stated that prosecutrix is a lady of easy virtue. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner, who is in custody from 5.3.2012, may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional PP submits that call details, as incorporated in paragraph No. 88 of the case diary shows that on the date of occurrence, petitioner and prosecutrix talked 7 times. He further submits that at paragraph No. 37 of the case diary, waiter of the executive home categorically stated that on 4.3.2012, petitioner came in the hotel at about 11:30 A.M. along with prosecutrix. From perusal of seizure list, it appears that from the bed of petitioner, broken bangles seized. He further submits that lady in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. categorically stated that petitioner committed rape upon her. He then submits that prosecutrix was medically examined on the next date, i.e. on 5.3.2012, thus, if Doctor did not find any sign of sexual intercourse, there is no abnormality in it. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of case. From perusal of first information report itself it is clear that prosecutrix is resident of Deoghar. It further appears that she came to Ranchi on the allurement given by the petitioner that she will be provided some employment. It is stated in the F.I.R. that petitioner given a call to prosecutrix and asked her to come near Big Bazar and from there, he took prosecutrix with him and went to executive home at Harmu and there committed rape. Aforesaid fact finds corroboration from the call details, as well as statement of waiter at paragraph No. 37. The broken bangles of prosecutrix seized from the bed of petitioner also corroborates statement of prosecutrix.
(3.) CONSIDERING the same, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, his bail application rejected.;