Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24530 (JHR)

DISSHAD ANSARI ALIAS DILSAD ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./7900/2026 · 2026-08-25

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:26131 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7900 of 2026 Disshad Ansari @ Dilsad Ansari son of Majbul Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP --- 04/25.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.07.2026 in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 64(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is case and counter case between the parties. So far as present FIR is concerned, the victim is the informant of the case and it is alleged that the petitioner and two others committed rape upon her while she was taking bath in a pond. 4. The learned counsel has referred to page 25 of the bail application and submits that in another FIR it has been alleged that there was altercation between the husband of the victim of the present case and son of the informant and there has been assault which led to injuries. 5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.07.2026 and charge sheet has been submitted on 18.07.2026. ( 2026:JHHC:26131 ) 2 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made in the FIR and also the fact that the incident of the FIR is not the same as the incident of the other FIR at Annexure-2, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 25.08.2026 Uploaded on 31.08.2026 Binit/