Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10853 (JHR)

SURAJ PASWAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3416/2025 · 2025-05-01

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:JHHC:13137] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3416 of 2025 ------ Suraj Paswan, Age about 31 Years, S/O- Shambhu Paswan, Resident of Banta Nagar S.N Near High School, Quarter No- 188 (R.I.T), P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, Dist- Saraikella-Karsawa .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-01-05-2025 Heard the parties. This is the second journey of the petitioner with a prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 passed in B.A. No.7264 of 2024. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with RIT P.S. Case No.63 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.186 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341/323/506/354(a)/354(d)/ 376(2)(n)/384/504/509 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that the petitioner meanwhile remained in custody for some more time. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the informant-opposite party and cheated her and made the intimate pictures of the informant taken at the time of occurrence, viral and has also sent the same to the husband of the informant and also threatening the informant to have physical relationship with her now also. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the only fresh ground that the petitioner has been in custody for some more days since the earlier rejection of his regular bail, this Court is of the considered view, that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the order dated 25.09.2024 passed in B.A. No.7264 of 2024. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/