IMRAN KHAN MD IMRAN KHAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./3039/2025 · 2025-04-21
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10352 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10352 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2025:JHHC:11766 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3039 of 2025
------ Imran Khan @ Md. Imran Khan, aged about 30 years, son of Mansur Khan, r/o Amlo Basti, P.O. +P.S.-Bermo, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated- 21.04.2025
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No.12 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 64 of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner and the victim were in love. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of commission of rape upon the victim and even assuming for the sake of argument, the defence of the petitioner that he was in love with the victim that does not confer any right upon the petitioner to commit rape upon the victim. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of serious nature of allegation and the materials available in the record, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the materials available in the record as well as the
chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu-Gunjan/