Md. Tamizuddin @ Muhammad Tameez @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 291 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Tamizuddin @ Muhammad Tameez @ Md. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 May, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                             2025:JHHC:13963


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No.6338 of 2024
                                     ------
     Md. Tamizuddin @ Muhammad Tameez @ Md. Tameez, son of late
     Md. Ajamat @ Md. Ajmal, R/o Village Parsa, P.O. Parsa, P.S.
     Hanwara, District Godda.                           ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
     1.    The State of Jharkhand.
     2.    Victim
                                                 ... ... Opposite Parties
                                     ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Md. Faiyaz Alam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate

-----

07/ 08.05.2025

Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by

the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint

Case No.96 of 2024, for offences under Sections 376, 379 and 506

IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned

Special Judge-III-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda.

3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel

representing O.P. No.2 oppose the anticipatory bail application.

4. The allegation levelled against the petitioner on the basis of

complaint case is that when the victim was in her house, this

petitioner Md. Tameez came and forcibly dragged the complainant

inside a room by holding her hair and committed rape upon her

and recorded obscene videos of her.

5. After investigation, the petitioner was exonerated, as the final

form was filed in favour of the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the informant filed a protest petition and on

2025:JHHC:13963

protest, cognizance has been taken.

7. Admitted fact is that in this case on protest, cognizance has

been taken. Thus, no useful purpose would be served to keep the

petitioner in custody as there is no occasion for investigation.

8. Also, in a complaint case, there is no question of custodial

interrogation. The only fact which the Court has to be assured of is

whether the accused will face the trial or not or whether there is

any chance of tampering with the evidence.

9. Since the cognizance has already been taken in this case, the

petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned, who

will pass appropriate order in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

10. With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail

Application stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3