B.A./8538/2026 of RAMESH YADAV @ RAMESH KUMAR YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026

2026:JHHC:29932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 8538 of 2026

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Ramotar Yadav, R/o – Pahadpura, P.O. – Salaiya, P.S. – Bashishtnagar, District – Chatra, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Mohua Pali, APP

---

05/06.10.2026

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Bashisht Nagar P.S. Case No.100/2025, corresponding to S.T. Case No.256/2026, arising out of Complaint Case No.318/2025, registered under Sections 115 (2), 126 (2), 109, 64, 303 (2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) read with Section 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Chatra.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2026. The charge has been framed on 05.08.2026. She has submitted that in the F.I.R., there is also an allegation of rape, but ultimately the charge has been framed under Sections 109/3 (5), 115 (2) / 3 (5), 126 (2)/ 3(5), 75 (2) /3(5), 352 / 3(5), 351 (2) / 3(5), 351 (3) / 3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

4. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 44 of the case diary to submit that the independent witness has stated that the petitioner and the informant party had very good relationship earlier but there has been some dispute between the parties and earlier also the victim of the present case had lodged an F.I.R. against the present petitioner.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner and his family member are being repeatedly accused of false cases one after another.

2026:JHHC:29932

She has also submitted that there is delay in lodging of F.I.R. The initial incident is of 17.02.2025 and the complaint was filed on 18.11.2025 before the learned court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is a counter case arising out of the same incident.

7. The learned counsel for the for the Informant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that merely because there was a previous case, the same does not mean that the cases are false cases. They have submitted that as the victim is yet to be examined before the court, the petitioner may not be released on bail.

8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the co-villager and also the fact that there was also a previous case against the petitioner with respect to similar kind of offence and the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

9. However, the State is directed to ensure that witnesses, particularly the victim, are promptly produced before the court.

10. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.

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

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:08.10.2026