Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24876 (JHR)

NEPAL MAHATO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./6081/2024 · 2025-05-06

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:13767 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6081 of 2024 ------ Nepal Mahato, son of late Rajendra Mahato, resident of Village Jhinjhipahari, P.O. Katras, P.S. Katras (Ramkanali O.P.), District Dhanbad, State – Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. ----- 11/ 06.05.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Katras (Ramkanali O.P.) P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, for offences under Sections 294, 452, 354(a)(1) / (iv) IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Dhanbad. 3. There is an allegation upon the petitioner that on seeing the informant who is a lady, alone in the house, this petitioner who happens to be the agnate entered the house and committed indecent act and also tried to outrage her modesty. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there is a land dispute which resulted in this case and the entire allegation is absolutely false. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that there are two other cases against the petitioner of similar nature filed by other persons which suggests that the petitioner is a habitual offender. She 2025:JHHC:13767 2 further submits that in the case diary it has come that this petitioner is threatening the informant to a withdraw the case. 6. Considering the statement of learned A.P.P., which she has narrated after going through the case diary, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge this petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3