Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5495/2026 of FAIZUL RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5495 of 2026 ------ Faizul Rahman, aged about 22 years, son of Shekh Asdullah, resident of village Sonpurwa, P.O.-Harigawan, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
( 2026:JHHC:29476 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5495 of 2026
------ Faizul Rahman, aged about 22 years, son of Shekh Asdullah, resident of village Sonpurwa, P.O.-Harigawan, P.S.-Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa (Jharkhand).
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Tafazzul Sajid, Advocate
: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 30-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.239 of 2026 registered under Sections 292, 223, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 238, 61(2), 338 of the BNS, 2023, Sections 3, 4 & 7 of Immoral Act, Sections 4, 6, 17 & 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl in a hotel room and as police made a raid in the said hotel, the victim disclosed about the commission of offence by the petitioner; who fled away from the hotel by jumping from the window of the hotel. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail as well as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and chance of his absconding if released on bail as well as the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above- named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 30/09/2026 Abhiraj/