Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5908 (JHR)

MD. RAJAK ANSARI ALIAS RAZAK ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1413/2026 · 2026-04-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:10608 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1413 of 2026 Md. Rajak Ansari @ Razak Ansari, son of Akbar Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V. S. Sahay, Advocate --- 06/15th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 143 of 2025 for the offence registered under Section 140(4), 3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 2. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has been produced by the learned counsel for the State in sealed cover. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 15.09.2025. The learned counsel submits that the victim and the petitioner are major and while the victim was allegedly being taken to Hyderabad, she did not raise any alarm and ultimately she came back. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS by stating that while she had gone out to attend natural call, the petitioner covered her nose and mouth with a handkerchief containing an intoxicating substance, due to which she became unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself in a train and the petitioner had taken her to Hyderabad and forcibly committed rape by threatening her. 2026:JHHC:10608 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and that the allegation made against the petitioner is serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.04.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-