Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9113/2026 of AMIN ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9113 of 2026 Amin Ansari, aged about 35 years, s/o Kudus Miyan, r/o Balamuvan, Tola- Kamudih, P.O.- Ambabar, P.S.-Pipratand, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …
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:29267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9113 of 2026
Amin Ansari, aged about 35 years, s/o Kudus Miyan, r/o Balamuvan, Tola- Kamudih, P.O.- Ambabar, P.S.-Pipratand, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
: Ms. Leena Shakti, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP
---
05/29.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2026 in connection with Pipratand P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026, registered under sections 74, 64, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palamau.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He submits that there are three distinct dates of occurrences in the First Information Report. It has been alleged that the petitioner was working as labour in the house of the victim and had been troubling her in absence of her husband, and on 10.04.2026, when both the children had gone out for a feast of marriage, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon the victim and threatened her. After that, the petitioner had called the victim to market to buy some pipes and during that occasion also, the petitioner raped her and threatened her not to disclose the occurrence to her husband. It is further alleged that thereafter the petitioner came outside the house of the victim and asked her to make certain utterance to show that she was having love relationship with the petitioner, the petitioner did recording of the same and such recording was made viral.
2026:JHHC:29267
2
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Annexure 2 to submit that there was no marriage on 10.04.2026 in the village and has further submitted that the victim never raised any alarm and no recording has been recovered during investigation. He submits that the charge sheet has been submitted on 22.07.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner has been threatening the victim from time to time. He submits that under such circumstances, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the petitioner has been threatening the victim from time to time as alleged in the First Information Report itself, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage as the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026