IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 648 of 2011
....
Tinu Mandal @ Prayag Mandal … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
….
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. M. Palit, A.P.P.
3 /11.05.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section
376 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
though petitioner has been alleged by the prosecutrix to have
committed rape upon her but the entire allegation is false and the
reason for false implication is that petitioner, who was working in
the house of prosecutrix since last two years, was not being paid his
wages and therefore petitioner on 04.12.2009, had filed an
application before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih making
complaint about nonpayment of wages, a copy of the same has been
annexed with this application wherein endorsement of receiving is
there and that apart, statement in this respect has also been made in
the supplementary affidavit and thus, it is evidently clear that
petitioner who is aged about 18 years whereas prosecutrix is 30
years old has falsely been implicated.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/ (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M.,
Giridih, in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 98 of 2010
arising out of G.R. No. 717 of 2010.
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Sunil/