Arun Kumar Maurya vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 123 of 2020.

The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner and the informant had duty in the Covid-ICU from 21.05.2020, according to the Covid-ICU roster. During this period the informant was staying in the paying ward in Room No. D-19 on the fourth floor, which was allotted to her. The petitioner was staying at his own residence. On 27.05.2020 one patient namely Guddu Mahli had to be incubated and put on ventilator support. This led to activation of Covid-ICU at 5:30 A.M. on 27.05.2020. As the patient was a suspect of Covid-19 he had to be kept in Covid-ICU till the test report came. The informant as well as the petitioner had to look after the patient till the replacements arrived at 9:30 A.M. on 28.05.2020. Subsequently it was informed that the patient's Covid test report was 'Negative'. Since the report was negative a decision was made to shift the patient to critical care ICU which is temporarily running in the Cardiology Block. It has been alleged that after the shifting was initiated, the petitioner told the informant that his residence will be closed for the night and that the Guard at his residence was not picking his call as such the petitioner insisted to stay in the paying ward with the informant in the same room which was allotted to her. Since the aforesaid proposal was not acceptable to the informant she had somehow managed to get allotted Room No. D-15 to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner called the informant on phone and came into her room and asked her to show his room. Further allegation has been levelled that when the informant showed the petitioner his room, the petitioner asked her to provide a bottle of water and when the informant went to hand him over the same the petitioner is said to have outraged her modesty and molested her but the informant somehow managed to escape from his clutches and informed her seniors which ultimately led to institution of the First Information Report.

It has been stated by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Doctor by profession and is working at present as a Senior Resident in (PDCC, Critical Care) in the Trauma Department of RIMS, Ranchi since 05.08.2019. Learned senior counsel submits that in the wake of the pandemic the petitioner was directed to work in the Covid-19 team from 21.05.2020 to 27.05.2020 along with the informant. Learned senior counsel submits that no such incident as alleged had taken place and in fact the informant in order to settle scores on account of her leaving Medica Super Speciality Hospital where she was working under the father-in-law of the petitioner the present criminal case has been instituted. Mr. Mazumdar, further submits that there has been a considerable delay in institution of the First Information Report as the occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 27/28.05.2020 but the complaint was lodged on 28.05.2020 at about 8:00 P.M. While referring to the statement of the informant recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Mr. Mazumdar, further submits that on the face of it the same at best appears to be a case u/s 354A of the Indian Penal Code which is bailable in nature. It has further been stated that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was taken after two days of the alleged incident is an exaggerated account on the part of the informant. It has been stated that the petitioner has remained in custody since 02.06.2020 and on the facts narrated above the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. He has stated that the First Information Report as well as the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim would indicate that the petitioner was persistently making requests to stay the night with the informant. He has further submitted that the offence as alleged does not come within the purview of Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code since the petitioner had repeatedly made attempts at molesting the informant when she had come to the room allotted to the petitioner.

On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State the First Information Report as well as the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant has been looked into. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement basically is a reiteration of the written report submitted by the informant. It further appears from the said statement that details have been given regarding the duty which was allotted to the petitioner and the informant and the repeated insistence on the part of the petitioner to stay with the informant for the night on the excuse that it was not possible for the petitioner to go back to his residence. The various circumstances have been enumerated in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement and lastly it has been stated at paragraph 11 of the said statement that when the informant progressed towards the door for going to her house the petitioner had caught her hand and tried to drag her thrice towards him and had also switched off the light. The petitioner has also been alleged to have pushed her towards the bed and had climbed upon her and when the informant started crying the grip of the petitioner loosened and the informant managed to escape and thereafter informed her seniors. She has further disclosed that the petitioner had sent her a message on WhatsApp apologizing for such act on his part.

The gamut of the allegations levelled do not indicate an offence u/s 354A of the Indian Penal Code as has much been stressed upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The act of the petitioner was explicit as the petitioner had dragged the informant towards the bed and had climbed atop her but the informant somehow managed to escape from his clutches and the intention of the petitioner in the entire background facts and circumstances of the case as narrated by the informant does indicate an attempt made by the petitioner to commit rape upon the informant.

In such fact situation, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is hereby rejected at this stage.