Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16447 (JHR)

KALAM ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./5398/2025 · 2025-07-03

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:JHHC:17813] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5398 of 2025 ------ Kalam Ansari, aged about 32 years Son of Mumtaz Ansari, Resident of Village- Ward No.12, Korwadih, P.O. and P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03-07-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.321 of 2025 (S.T. No.112 of 2025) registered under Section 87, 82 (2), 83, 84 and 318 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has abducted the wife of the informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the alleged victim is a major lady. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.02.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of abducting the wife of the informant, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is further submitted that the victim lady has also supported the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/