Allowed

Sonu Ansari Alias Safiullah Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Oct 2022A.B.A./4639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, hearing a prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged sexual exploitation under false pretence of marriage, relied on Supreme Court precedent regarding marital status of the prosecutrix. The court inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail subject to conditions including surrender and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Granted privilege of anticipatory bail; directed surrender within four weeks; enlarged on bail upon furnishing Rs.25,000 bond and sureties with conditions.

Sonu Ansari Alias Safiullah Ansari Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4639 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Sonu Ansari @ Safiullah Ansari .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Adv. ------

¶7

Order No.09 Dated- 19.10.2022

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 287 of 2021 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per FIR, allegation is that prosecutrix developed intimacy with the present petitioner about two years ago and since last six months, petitioner was sexually exploiting her on the false pretext of marriage.

¶11

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix is a married woman and there is no allegation about any physical relationship established by petitioner with the informant by using force and violence. It is admitted fact that the prosecutrix developed intimacy with the petitioner last two years prior to the occurrence and when the petitioner refused to solemnize marriage with her, the prosecutrix imputed false case against him. Learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rahul Mishra Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in (2018) SCC Online Del 7231 and submitted that the prosecutrix is already a married woman and her marriage is subsisting, hence, it could not be said that the victim may be raped solely on the ground of false pretext of marriage. In this case, except false promise of marriage there is nothing to vitiate the consent of prosecutrix. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is allegation of serious offence against the petitioner of sexually exploiting the victim on false assurance of marriage. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 287 of 2021 with the condition that he will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

Sonu Ansari Alias Safiullah Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Ansari Alias Safiullah Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Prasad Saini Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saurav Saini Alias Kumar Saurav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sirajul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Nath Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shareef Sheikh Alias Sarif Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand