Dismissed

Mintu Ansari Alias Miraz Khan Alias Meraj v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2023A.B.A./4458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava rejected an application for anticipatory bail Filed by two petitioners in a case involving rape and cheating under Sections 328/376/34 IPC, holding that the gravity of the offence warranted continued investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioners to remain in custody for investigation.

Mintu Ansari Alias Miraz Khan Alias Meraj Vs the State… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 4458 of 2022

¶3

Mintu Ansari @ Miraz Khan @ Meraj

¶4

Kalim Ansari ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … ... ... ... Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

--------For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

¶8

¶9

06/Dated: 20.01.2023

¶10

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 328/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Tatijhariya P.S. Case No. 69 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned S.DJ.M., Hazaribag.

¶11

Allegation against the petitioners is that on 26.10.2021 these petitioners on the pretext of dropping her to her house took the informant on their motorcycle towards Hazaribagh. In the way at Vishnugarh, they stopped the motorcycle and gave a chocolate to informant due to which felt intoxicated. Thereafter, in forest area, the petitioners committed rape upon the informant and thereafter admitted her to hospital. The victim sustained injuries on her private parts and after discharge from hospital she lodged this case. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has also corroborated her earlier version.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the victim was employee of petitioner No.1 in the office and petitioner No.2 also works under petitioner No.1. There was dispute regarding payment of salary which is admitted in the F.I.R. itself. On the date of allegation occurrence also, she could not be paid her salary because she had done no work in the said period. Due to that reason, this false case has been lodged. It is further submitted that on the date of occurrence, the informant was travelling on the motorcycle of the petitioners which met with an accident near Vishnugarh,

¶13

-2-

¶14

thereafter she was sent for medical treatment by a tempo to Tatijhariya Baba Hospital. The petitioners are innocent and they have no criminal antecedent. Hence, they deserve bail.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

¶16

It appears that there is a direct allegation against the petitioners of committing rape upon the victim which is also corroborated in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Investigation is going on against the petitioners. Considering the gravity of the offence and materials available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on anticipatory bail. This application stands rejected.

¶17

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J)

¶18

Manoj/

Mintu Ansari Alias Miraz Khan Alias Meraj v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu Ansari Alias Miraz Khan Alias Meraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rizwan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Gupta Alias Sanjay Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akash Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Lohra Alias Dilesh Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Satya Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand