Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8288/2026 of RAHUL PATHAK @ RAHUL KR. PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8288 of 2026 Rahul Pathak @ Rahul Kumar Pathak age 30 years son of Subodh Pathak, R/o Jhakra Tand, P.O.+P.S.-Ratu, Dist. Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE
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:29446 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8288 of 2026
Rahul Pathak @ Rahul Kumar Pathak age 30 years son of Subodh Pathak, R/o Jhakra Tand, P.O.+P.S.-Ratu, Dist. Ranchi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.
---
07/30.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Counter affidavit filed during the court proceeding is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 111 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 140(3) and vide order dated 06.04.2026 offence under Section 103(1) and 238/3 (5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. XXIV, Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and as per the FIR the victim was found missing from the house of the petitioner. It is alleged that the victim was working as domestic help in the house of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that subsequently during investigation it has come that the victim was cremated at Gaya Ji. He submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged offence.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to paragraph 29 of the case diary and has submitted that mobile location of the petitioner was tracked and was found in Gaya Ji and so far as driver who had taken the dead body of the deceased to Gaya Ji is concerned, he has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that Subodh Pathak, the father of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner and the petitioner all had accompanied to go to Gaya Ji where the deceased was cremated.
( 2026:JHHC:29446 )
2
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid materials collected during investigation and it is not in dispute that the deceased was working in the house of the petitioner as domestic help, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.09.2026 Uploaded on 30.09.2026 Binit/