Petitioner challenged bail refusal in a rape case. Court rejected bail prayer due to strong incriminating materials but directed trial conclusion within six months.
Prayer for bail rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial within six months.
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
B.A. No. 900 of 2022
Ajaj Ansari
…… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
Order No.04/ Dated:04.08.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with S.T. No. 379 of 2021 arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2021, registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VI, Ranchi.
As per F.I.R. there is an allegation of commission of rape with the informant-victim by calling her in Dadijiri Forest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that informant is a major girl and from her restatement, it is apparent that she appears to be a consenting party. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 26.04.2021 without rhymes and reasons. It is also submitted that there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the present case, hence he does not deserve bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with materials available against petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby, rejected. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case within six months from the date of this order, otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if trial is not concluded within aforesaid period.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves enlargement on bail in a rape case pending in the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajaj Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
