Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9333/2026 of RAJU KUMAR SAW @ RAJA KUMAR @ RAJU KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9333 of 2026 Raju Kumar Saw @ Raja Kumar @ Raju Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Munna Saw, resident of Near Barmasia Middle School, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of
2026:JHHC:29938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9333 of 2026
Raju Kumar Saw @ Raja Kumar @ Raju Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Munna Saw, resident of Near Barmasia Middle School, P.O. &
P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Ms. Lily Sahay, APP
---
03/06.10.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2026 in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.183/2026, registered under Sections 126 (2), 127 (2), 115 (2), 64
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.
(1), 351 (3) and 3 (5) of the BNS 2023 now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim is a married lady and she married one Suraj Kumar and also became pregnant and she moved from one place to another and she was found isolated, and therefore, the petitioner brought her so that she could work as a domestic help. He submits that the petitioner is the resident of the locality and he has been wrongly apprehended.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. She has submitted that it is alleged that rape was committed upon the informant, who happens to be the victim and she managed to escape from the apartment while she was half dressed and raised alarm. The people of the locality apprehended the petitioner on the spot.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this 2026:JHHC:29938
bail application is rejected.
6. 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