Dismissed¶14

Vikash Kumar Ravi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Feb 2025A.B.A./820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; A.B.A. No.820 of 2025; Vikash Kumar Ravi v. State; anticipatory bail application rejected; alleged rape dated 08.07.2024; Chiniya Town P.S. Case No.31 of 2024; Sections 115(2)/64/351(2) B.N.S. 2023; custodial interrogation during investigation; no criminal antecedent; 14-day delay in FIR; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; Order No.02 dated 06-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, the Court was not inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail. ¶13

Vikash Kumar Ravi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.820 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Vikash Kumar Ravi aged about 18 years son of Dara @ Dayanand Ram, resident of village Ranpura, P.O. Ranpura, P.S. Chiniya, District Garhwa.

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl.P.P

¶7

Order No.02 Dated-06-02-2025

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chiniya Town P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 instituted under Sections 115(2)/64/351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim on 08.07.2024. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that admittedly prior to that also, the petitioner made physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage for eight months, so, the case of the petitioner is highly improbable. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years and admittedly, there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. It is then submitted that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand

¶12

vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim on 08.07.2024; hence, his custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.

¶15

Saroj/

Vikash Kumar Ravi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Ravi 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

Pradeep Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shargun Harijan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Bhagat Alias Dipak Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Horli Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priyanshu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitai Tapadar Vs the State of Jharkhand