BIJENDAR DAS ALIAS BIJENDRA DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./724/2025 · 2025-02-05
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3244 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3244 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 724 of 2025
------ Bijendar Das @ Bijendra Das, aged 24 years, son of Surendra Das @ Suren Das, resident of Village Dasondhidih, P.O. Khariyadih, P.S. –Hirodih, District –Giridih.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated- 05.02.2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.36 of 2022 registered under sections 376/452/354B/ 323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner repeatedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is delay in lodging the complaint which upon being referred to police, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered. It is then submitted that this false case has been instituted only to blackmail the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the prosecutrix forcibly on several occasions and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-