Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35119 (JHR)

SULEMAN TUTI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./7736/2025 · 2025-10-16

Ambuj Nath

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:32186 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7736 of 2025 ------- Suleman Tuti, aged about 32 years, son of Late Markush Tuti, resident of village Saryad Ulidih, P.O. & P.S. Arki, District Khunti. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P. P. -------- 03/ Dated 16.10.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Arki P.S. Case No. 63 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No.60 of 2024, S.T. Case No.35 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti. Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide B.A. No.10605/2024, by order dated 16.12.2024. On 30.11.2023, petitioner is alleged to have raped the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim had consumed Haria with the petitioner. It was further submitted that the victim had stayed with him for six hours and when she reached home, her husband became apprehensive and at the instance of her husband, she lodged a false case against the petitioner. From the perusal of the written report of the informant, it appears that at about 8:00 p.m., petitioner had raped her. She reached home at about 11:00 p.m and both the petitioner and the informant went to their respective homes. Report regarding the stage of the trial and the time required for its conclusion, earlier called for, has been received. It appears that out of six charge sheeted witnesses, three witnesses including the victim, have been examined. She has supported the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court has reported that the trial is likely to be concluded within six months. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. Learned Trial Court shall expedite the trial. (Ambuj Nath, J.) October 16, 2025 BS/-