Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9019/2026 of AISH KUMAR GUPTA @ S. KUMAR GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9019 of 2026 Aish Kumar Gupta @ S. Kumar Gupta, aged about 23 years, son of – Vijay Saw, Resident of Vill. – Lawahi Khurd, P.O. – Balekhand and P.S. – Dandai, District - Garhwa. … … 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:29070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9019 of 2026
Aish Kumar Gupta @ S. Kumar Gupta, aged about 23 years, son of – Vijay Saw, Resident of Vill. – Lawahi Khurd, P.O. – Balekhand and P.S. – Dandai, District - Garhwa.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP
---
03/28.09.2026
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 Dandai P.S. Case No.62 of 2026, registered under Sections 64 (2) (m), 109, 115 (2), 117 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) cum ADJ – I – cum – FTC (CAW), Garhwa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the F.I.R. itself, the victim met the petitioner in a railway station and it is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner established physical relationship with her and she became pregnant. It is further submitted that the petitioner kept the victim in a room and treated as his wife and also used to sent some money to her. In the meantime, she gave birth to a baby boy. Ultimately, the petitioner refused to marry her and stopped talking to her, and later on, she came to know that the petitioner has married somewhere else. It is also alleged that the victim was called in a jungle along with her child and an attempt was made to kill the child and somehow, she saved the child.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and the victim were living as husband and wife and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court 2026:JHHC:29070
finds that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and a child was also born and ultimately the petitioner also made an attempt to kill the child by calling her in the jungle. In view of the direct allegations and also the fact that the victim is yet to be examined before the trial court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:28.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:30.09.2026