Nadimul Rahman v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2024B.A./3033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 3033 of 2023; bail application allowed; Justice Ambuj Nath; decided 23.01.2024; petitioner Nadimul Rahman; Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2022; SPl. POCSO Case No. 56/2022; IPC Sections 323, 376, 494, 315, 307, 498-A, 34; D.P. Act Sections 03, 04; Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum Special Judge POCSO Lohardaga; bail bond Rs. 20,000 with two sureties; matrimonial dispute resolved; informant residing with petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum Special Judge, POCSO, Lohardaga, in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2022, corresponding to SPl. POCSO Case No. 56/2022. ¶¶18

Nadimul Rahman Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 3033 of 2023

¶3

Nadimul Rahman

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus -

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Suhani Parveen ... … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s. Altamash Khan, Advocate For the State : M/s. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Nawin Kumar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

10/23.01.2024 Heard the Parties.

¶14

Petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2022, corresponding to SPl. POCSO Case No. 56/2022, registered under Sections 323/ 376/ 494/ 315/ 307/ 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 03/ 04 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum Special Judge, POCSO, Lohardaga.

¶15

The petitioner happens to be the husband of the informant. Before marriage, the petitioner had established physical relationship with the informant against her wish, subsequently, they got married. It is alleged that after marriage petitioner and his family member started torturing the informant to enforce the demand of rupees two lakhs and a bullet motorcycle.

¶16

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the matrimonial dispute between the parties has been resolved.

¶17

Mr. Nawin Kumar has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and submitted that the informant is living in the house of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the informant has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner.

¶18

Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only)

¶19

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum Special Judge, POCSO, Lohardaga in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 19/2022, corresponding to SPl. POCSO Case No. 56/2022.

¶20

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶21

Saurabh

¶22

uploaded

Nadimul Rahman v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadimul Rahman v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devashis Soy Alias Tidu Alias Tirung Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mubarak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Thandi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ladura Hembrom Alias Chadu Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Dubey Alias Nitish Dubey Alias Nitesh Kr Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand