Neyazuddin @ Md. Neyazuddin vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the informant filed coutner affidavit. Keep the same in the record.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chutia P.S. case no. 245 of

2019 registered under Sections 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though FIR was registered for the offence punishable under sections 366A/34 IPC and

subsequently, section 153A, 295A, 365 and 120B was added and section 366A was replaced by section 366 IPC in the FIR vide order dated

23.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against

the petitioner is that the victim was student of a local college of Ranchi and during her study, she developed friendship with the daughter of the

petitioner and the petitioner got the victim introduced to his relatives and the co-accused Zeeshan @ Zishu. It is further alleged that the petitioner

brain-washed the victim about her religion showing a banned video of Zakir Nayak due to which the victim-daughter of the informant suffered from

mental disorder and she was undergoing treatment at RINPAS, Ranchi and other places also. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner in conspiracy with the co-accused, Alia and Zeeshan @ Zishu, had compelled the victim to change her religion and abducted the

victim and after committing rape upon her, the victim has been killed and the victim is still traceless and the petitioner has every knowledge about the

details of the case. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has neither any concern with the victim nor with the co-accused Zeeshan @ Zishu and the victim was in love with

Zeeshan @ Zishu and as mentioned in paragraph 74 of the case diary, the victim sent a letter from Kolkata along with her complete present address

stating therein that she is a major lady aged about 20 years and she has voluntarily left with Zeeshan @ Zishu and her father has falsely implicated the

petitioner and the co-accused persons in this case. It is next submitted that the police has full knowledge about the whereabouts of the alleged victim

but the police is not bringing her to Ranchi and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is a tailor by profession hence, the petitioner be given

the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. PP assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits

that in the alleged letter written by the victim to the police, though it is mentioned that she has married the co-accused Zeeshan @ Zishu and is

residing at Kolkata in a particular address mentioned in the said letter but the said letter is a fabricated document to misdirect the investigation of the

case by police which is evident from the paragraph 134 of the case diary where the I.O. of the case has categorically mentioned that he visited the

said house but neither the victim nor the co-accused Zeeshan @ Zishu was found in the said house rather the same was found locked. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel that the allegation that the police is not properly conducting the investigation and not providing the victim to Ranchi

deliberately is out and out false as the police had no idea about the whereabouts of the victim and the petitioner is also not co-operating with the police

in the investigation of the case, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during

investigation of the case, hence the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of having involved in abduction of the victim girl and as the victim girl has not been traced out

till now as well as keeping in view the requirement of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this Court is of

the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory

bail of the petitioner is rejected.