The single-judge High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the nature of allegations regarding establishing a physical relationship on false pretenses and denying to marry justified denying the privilege.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1944 of 2020
Jitu Bauri. ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. …. Opposite Party
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.
03/9-10-2020 Heard the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Katras (Ramklanali) P.S. Case No. 208 of 2019.
It has been alleged that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of marriage. Later on, he denied to solemnize marriage.
In view of nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest for establishing a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and subsequently denying to solemnize the marria
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitu Bauri
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
