B.A./8527/2026 of BABULAL TURI @ BABLU KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 8 October 2026

2026:JHHC:30097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 8527 of 2026

Babulal Turi @ Bablu Kumar, aged about 26 years, Son of Chunilal Mirdha @ Chunilal Turi, resident of Village Pakitand, P.O. Bagodar, P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih (Jharkhand).

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP

For the Informant : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate

---

05/08.10.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 104 of 2026 corresponding to Cyber P.S. Case No. 45 of 2026, registered under Section 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under sections 66(E) & 67(A) of Information Technology Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Cum Special Judge (Cyber Crime), Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2026 and charge has been framed on 24.09.2026. He submits that the case is at the stage of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, be perused. They submit that the victim has supported the case against the petitioner.

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 wherein it is alleged that

2026:JHHC:30097 2

the petitioner has committed forceful sexual assault upon the victim and statement of other material witnesses, and also considering the fact that the victim is yet to be examined before the court in trial , this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

6. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some observation may be made so that the trial is expedited.

7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned Court as and when directed by the learned Court.

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district for compliance.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:08.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.10.2026