Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8316/2026 of MD BETULLAH @ RAZA KHAN @ MOHAMMAD BETULLA Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8316 of 2026 Md. Betullah @ Raza Khan @ Mohammad Betulla, aged about 24 years, son of Sahud Sah, resident of Village Mohanpur, P.O. Udnabad & P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih … … Petitioner Versus The State of
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.
( 2026:JHHC:29762 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8316 of 2026
Md. Betullah @ Raza Khan @ Mohammad Betulla, aged about 24 years, son of Sahud Sah, resident of Village Mohanpur, P.O. Udnabad & P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Sweta Singh, APP
---
04/05.10.2026 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 B.S. City P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026, S.T. No. 253 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 77, 78(2), 79, 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2026. Charge has been framed in this case on 23.07.2026 but no witness has been examined so far. He further submits that both the petitioner and the victim are major and there is no allegation of any sexual assault by the petitioner against the victim. He submits that it has been alleged by the victim that the petitioner has suppressed his religion and that he belongs to different religion and had also prepared objectionable video but the petitioner has not circulated the video anywhere. The learned counsel submits that it has also been alleged by the victim that her marriage was fixed and because of the petitioner the marriage could not be solemnized. He has submitted that the particular date of occurrence has not been mentioned.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it has been stated by the victim that the petitioner and the
( 2026:JHHC:29762 )
2
victim became friend through the Instagram but the petitioner has suppressed his religion and also prepared an objectionable video and pressurizing the victim to change her religion and also threatening the victim. Considering the fact that 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. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses including the victim are promptly examined before the learned court.
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 05.10.2026 Uploaded on 06.10.2026 Binit/