Dismissed¶14

Mohammed Afroz Ahmed Alias Afroz Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2024A.B.A./820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected — ABA 820/2023, Jharkhand HC, 06.03.2024, Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; petitioner Mohammed Afroz Ahmed @ Afroz Ansari; Godda (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022 (IPC 354(B) & 506; IT Act 66(C)/67(A)); charge sheet 255/2023 dt. 24.07.2023 (IPC 354(C)&(D) & 506; IT Act 66(A)); obscene photographs recovered from mobile; offence against close female relative; alleged offence at Hyderabad, FIR lodged at Godda; interim arrest protection earlier granted but petitioner failed to appear before IO / cooperate; bail privilege denied.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner; the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. ¶13

Mohammed Afroz Ahmed Alias Afroz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Godda (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022 (alleged forcible naked photographs, threats and attempted rape), should be granted anticipatory bail.

¶7

Court's answer

The Court declined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner; the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Ground for refusal: consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the nature of the offence alleged, and the fact that the petitioner had already been charge-sheeted.

¶13

Key takeaways

Additional ground for refusal: although arrest protection had been granted by this Court, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer and did not cooperate in investigation.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A.B.A. No. 820 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Order No. 05 dated 06.03.2024; Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) — Anticipatory bail REFUSED. Applicant apprehended arrest in Godda (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022, instituted under Sections 354(B) & 506 IPC and Sections 66(C)/67(A) of the Information Technology Act, on allegations that he forcibly took naked photographs of the informant (his close relative), threatened to kill her husband and make the photographs viral on social media, and attempted rape; counsel argued false implication arising from a request to vacate the applicant's Hyderabad house and that the alleged offence occurred at Hyderabad, outside Jharkhand. The State opposed, reporting that obscene photographs had been recovered from the applicant's mobile and that Charge Sheet No. 255 of 2023 dated 24.07.2023 had been submitted under Sections 354(C)&(D) & 506 IPC and Section 66(A) IT Act. Since the applicant, despite arrest protection earlier granted by the Court, had neither appeared before the I.O. nor cooperated in investigation, the Court held itself not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 820 of 2023

¶2

Mohammed Afroz Ahmed @ Afroz Ansari ….. Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand 2. Sahista Khatun ….. Opp. Parties --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate. ---------

¶5

Order No. 05/Dated: 6^th March, 2024

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Godda (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 196 of 2022 instituted under Sections 354 (B), 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(C) / 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per the F.I.R., the allegation is that the petitioner took the informant and her husband to Hyderabad for doing some work as daily wagers. It is alleged that husband of the informant used to go to work at about 3:00 P.M. and return at 3:00 A.M. and the informant used to work in his home and the petitioner, who is Nandoshi, use to see informant with evil eye. It is alleged that petitioner forcibly took naked photographs of informant and threatened to kill her husband and make the same viral on social media. Petitioner has also attempted to commit rape upon the informant, but somehow the informant and her husband returned to her parental home and lodged this case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly the informant along with her husband stayed in the house of the present petitioner at Hyderabad and when he requested to vacate his house, then this false case was instituted. FIR was lodged at Godda, although the offence as alleged has happened in Hyderabad. No incriminating articles has been seized from the conscious possession of the

¶10

-2-

¶11

petitioner. It is lastly submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate in investigation of the case and abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that in course of investigation, several materials have been collected and obscene photographs from the mobile of the petitioner has also been collected. After investigation, having sufficient materials against the petitioner, charge sheet has also been submitted vide Charge Sheet No. 255 of 2023 dated 24.07.2023 for the offences under Section 354 (C) & (D), 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act. There is serious allegation against the petitioner for committing offence against a woman, who happens to be his close relative. Hence, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, seriousness of nature of offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner, for which he has been charge sheeted and inspite of protection from arrest granted by this Court, the petitioner has not appeared before the I.O. and co-operated in investigation, hence, I am not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Sunil/

Mohammed Afroz Ahmed Alias Afroz Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Afroz Ahmed Alias Afroz 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

Gurudayal Sao Alias Gurudev Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reeta Topno Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Safiullah Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Malay Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Maskur Alias Maskur Vs the State of Jharkhand