Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6811 (JHR)

LAKHAN RANA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3213/2025 · 2025-04-23

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2025:JHHC:12206 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3213 of 2025 ------ 1. Lakhan Rana, aged about 18 years, son of Bolo Rana, 2. Ranjeet Kol, Aged about 19 years, son of Manilal Kol, Both resident of Village –Bodma, P.O. & P.S. –Mihijam, District –Jamtara. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Jayant Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No02 Dated- 23.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 70(2), 351(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed gang rape upon the minor victim girl and thus committed aggravated sexual assault upon her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of committing gang rape upon the minor victim girl, there is every chance of the petitioners tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the chance of their tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/