Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9190/2026 of XXX Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9190 of 2026 XXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Prasad,
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:29611 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9190 of 2026
XXX
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate
: Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
---
03/01.10.2026 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 Dhurki P.S. Case No. 48 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 64(2) (f), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) & 352 of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the brother-in-law of the victim. He submits that there is a delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is land dispute between the parties. However, during the course of hearing he has not been able to disclose any particulars of the land dispute.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has entered in the house of the victim and gave money to children to go to the shop and committed rape upon her. He submits that the delay has also been explained as her husband was not there and when her husband came, the victim disclosed the matter to her husband and lodged the FIR.
( 2026:JHHC:29611 ) 2
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and the victim is yet to be examined before the court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.10.2026 Uploaded on 03.10.2026 Binit/