Anticipatory bail sought in a cyber police station case alleging rape, videography of the act, and circulation of objectionable photographs. The court found no fit case for pre-arrest bail given the nature of allegations and custodial interrogation need, and rejected the prayer.
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3486 of 2024
-----
Md. Reyaj @ Md. Reyajuddin … … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party -------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. ------
Order No. 02 / Dated 04th June, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Giridih (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023, instituted under Sections 376(D), 376(2)(n), 420, 384, 452, 504, 506(2), 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the content of the FIR and submission has been made that from simple perusal of FIR, it is apparent that petitioner as well as victim/prosecuterix are major and it is a case of consensual sex. On aforesaid premise anticipatory bail has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is material collected during course of investigation which shows that the act of the petitioner has been videographed and I.O. has seized the pendrive during the course of investigation.
There is allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape on the person of victim/ prosecuterix, made video and viraled objectionable photographs. I have carefully gone through the material available on record and when query
was made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner that what was the occasion to the petitioner to make videography of the alleged act if alleged act is consensual one, then learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not videographed by the mobile phone of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that custodial interrogation is required in the present case.
Considering nature of allegation, I do not find a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a rape and videography case despite the claim of consensual relations.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Reyaj @ Md. Reyajuddin
The State of Jharkhand
Arun Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
