Dismissed¶19

Mustafa Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2025Cr.A(SJ)/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail prayer rejected; criminal appeal dismissed; attempt to commit rape; victim deaf and dumb; pregnancy in medical report held irrelevant for present; BNS sections 329, 74, 75(i), 76, 64, 62; BNSS section 183 victim statement; Lohardaga Mahila P.S Case No.19 of 2024; SC/ST Case No.10 of 2024; Misc. Criminal Application No.488 of 2024; order dated 18.12.2024 by Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lohardaga; appellant in custody since 24.07.2024; appellant working as Home Guard; appellant Mustafa Ansari; Judge Sanjay Prasad; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; dated 06.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses a direct allegation that the appellant tried to commit rape upon the victim and tried to open her clothes but could not succeed. ¶16

Mustafa Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lohardaga, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the direct F.I.R. allegation of attempted rape on a deaf-and-dumb victim. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses a direct allegation that the appellant tried to commit rape upon the victim and tried to open her clothes but could not succeed.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The victim's statement recorded under section 183 of the BNSS supports the allegation that the appellant was trying to commit rape upon her.

¶17

Key takeaways

The medical report showing the victim's approximately two-month pregnancy is not required to be seen for the present; the governing consideration is the direct allegation of attempted rape upon the victim, who is deaf and dumb.ratio¶17
On these findings, the Court rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Prasad, J., 06.08.2025) dismissed Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.111 of 2025, by which Mustafa Ansari challenged the rejection of his bail prayer dated 18.12.2024 by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lohardaga, in Misc. Criminal Application No.488 of 2024 (SC/ST Case No.10 of 2024) arising out of Lohardaga Mahila P.S Case No.19 of 2024, instituted under sections 329, 74, 75(i), 76, 64 and 62 of BNS. The F.I.R. directly alleges that the appellant entered the house where the victim's elder sister was alone and sleeping, pressed her breast and tried to open her clothes intending to sleep with her, but fled after she pushed him. The victim's statement under section 183 of the BNSS supported the allegation of attempted rape. The Court held that the medical report showing the victim's two-month pregnancy was not required to be seen for the present, the direct allegation of attempted rape upon the deaf-and-dumb victim being decisive, and accordingly rejected the bail prayer, dismissing the appeal.

¶1

2025:JHHC:22142

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.111 of 2025

¶4

Mustafa Ansari, aged about 32 years, Son of Rojauddin Ansari, Resident of village-Murki, Torar, P.S-Senha, P.O-Senha, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. …… Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.State of Jharkhand 2.Victim X …… Respondents --------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. B.M Tripathi, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : None For the Informant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated: 06^th August, 2025

¶7

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-Icum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lohardaga in Misc. Criminal Application No.488 of 2024 (SC/ST Case No.10 of 2024) arising out of Lohardaga Mahila P.S Case No.19 of 2024, instituted under sections 329, 74, 75(i), 76, 64 and 62 of BNS by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Heard Mr. B.M Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Naveen Jaiswal, learned counsel and learned counsel for the Informant.

¶9

As per F.I.R, it is alleged that the appellant entered into her house while her elder sister was alone and was sleeping. On finding her alone he started pressing her breast and tried to open her clothes and he wanted to sleep with her. However, her sister pushed her and thereafter he fled away.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is

¶11

¶12

2025:JHHC:22142

¶13

submitted that the appellant is working as Home Guard and he is in custody since 24.07.2024 and he will not fled away. It is submitted that the conduct of the Victim lady is suspicious and as per medical report she is pregnant of two months. It is submitted that the Victim girl is deaf and dumb but it has also come in the report that she understands which is surprising. It is submitted that the appellant will co-operate during trial and he will not abscond away and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

None appears for the State.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

From perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for trying to commit rape upon her and had tried to open her clothes but he could not succeed.

¶17

It also appears that the Victim girl during her statement recorded under section 183 of the BNSS has supported the allegation that the appellant was trying to commit rape upon her. 9. Though the medical report reveals that the lady was pregnant of about two months. However, this Court finds that the same is not required to be seen for the present in this case, as there is direct allegation against the appellant for attempting to commit rape upon the Victim girl who is deaf and dumb.

¶18

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

¶19

Thus, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.111 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed.

¶20

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶21

Saket/-

¶22

Mustafa Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafa Ansari v. 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

Etwari Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nisar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Surendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The S P Cbi Acb Ranchi And Ors.

Subodh Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sattar Alias MD Santar Vs the State of Jharkhand