Dismissed¶17

Nijamuddin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2024B.A./10734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application B.A. No.10734 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Justice Rajesh Kumar, decided 23.01.2024 — bail rejected. Applicant Nijamuddin Ansari, in custody since 08.05.2023; Raneshwar P.S. Case No.23 of 2023 / POCSO Case No.40 of 2023; offences under S.376 IPC, Ss.4/8 POCSO Act, S.66(E) I.T. Act; charge under Ss.376(3) IPC, S.6 POCSO Act, Ss.66/67B(b)(e) I.T. Act; trial pending before ASJ-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Dumka. Grounds: statement of the girl and her age; defence plea of false case based on re-statement and refusal of arranged marriage with cousin brother; State opposed bail.

What did the court decide?

Considering the statement of the girl and her age, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage, and the bail application was rejected. ¶17

Nijamuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10734 of 2023

¶2

¶3

Nijamuddin Ansari …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

05/Dated: 23^rd January, 2024

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

2. The applicant who is in custody since 08.05.2023 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Raneshwar P.S. Case No.23 of 2023 (POCSO Case No.40 of 2023), registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act and under Section 66(E) of the I.T. Act and further charge has been framed under Sections 376(3) of the IPC, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 66/67B(b)(e) of the I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Dumka.

¶14

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.

¶15

4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that it is a false case as it is evident from the re-statement of the girl itself. Further, the guardians have stated that the marriage of the victim was arranged with the cousin brother and due to that she has refused to marry. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶17

6. Considering the statement of the girl and her age, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

¶18

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶19

Amar/-

¶20

Uploaded

Nijamuddin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijamuddin Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Prasad Yadav Alias Umesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Prasad Yadav Alias Umesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Prasad Yadav Alias Umesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanu Munda Alias Nagendra Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadh Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand