IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 642 of 2024 --------- Gorakh Yadav, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Bisheshar Yadav @ Bisheshar Mahto, resident of Vill- Karar Kala, P.O. & P.S. Patan District-Palamau ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Mother of Victim ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : None --------- 08/23.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant for setting aside the Order dated 13.08.2024, passed in M.C.A.No. 1519 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024 instituted under Sections 376(1), 341, 504, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (w) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per F.I.R. it is alleged that the Appellant, who is aged about 60 years, has forcibly committed rape upon the 40 year old mentally retarded daughter of the Informant by gaging her with a piece of cloth and tying her hands. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the Informant. It is submitted that the Appellant is aged about 60 years and chargesheet has been submitted against him. It is submitted that there is delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the Appellant is suffering from various ailments. It is submitted that the Appellant has surrendered on 30.07.2024, hence, the Appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that though the Appellant is aged about 60 years, but he has forcibly committed rape on the victim lady, who is aged about 40 years and the victim lady is mentally retarded. It is submitted that the victim lady, during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the occurrence and several witnesses have also supported the allegation against the Appellant and hence the prayer for bail may be rejected. 5. Perused the records and considered the submission of both sides. 6. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the Appellant has committed rape upon the victim lady, who is mentally retarded by tying her hands and gaging her mouth with a piece of cloth. 7. It appears from the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the Appellant had removed all her clothes and thrashed her and had committed rape upon her. 8. It appears that the Informant, during her subsequent statement at Para 6 of the Case Diary has supported her case and the witnesses namely Rita Devi, Sushma Devi, Uday Singh, whose statements are recorded at Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the Case Diary respectively, have also supported the case of the Informant. Even the victim lady at paragraph 7 of the Case Diary has fully supported the case. 9. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to release the Appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Appellant is rejected and Order dated 13.08.2024, passed in M.C.A.No. 1519 of 2024, in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 48 of 2024, by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau is affirmed. 11. Thus, This Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 642 of 2024 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.