RAHUL KUMAR ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./5276/2025 · 2025-07-02
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16660 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16660 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:17621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.5276 of 2025
------ Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Mahto, aged about 20 years Son of Babulal Mahto @ Babulal Singh, Resident of Village- Korari, P.O. + P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi
... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Addl.P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated-02-07-2025 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ranchi Sadar (Mesra O.P.) P.S. Case No.558 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.184 of 2025) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/96 of the B.N.S, 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner kidnapped the minor victim girl to solemnize marriage with her. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that there is no sign of recent sexual violence found upon the victim though the doctor has opined that the sexual abuse cannot be ruled out. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.12.2024 as is evident from para-15 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the bail of the above named petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/