B.A./8071/2026 of DANINATH PAL Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026

2026:JHHC:28753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 8071 of 2026

Daninath Pal, aged about 32 years, Son of Tarapad Pal, Resident of Village- Shikarpur, P.O.- Mangla Bandh, P.S.-Pakuria, District- Pakur, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate

---

07/24.09.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2026 in connection with Pakuria P.S Case No. 22 of 2026, registered under sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/64(1)/ 352/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 66(E)/ 67 of Information Technology Act, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pakur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The First Information Report reveals that the petitioner and the victim were known to each other for the last two years and the victim is a major. He submits that it has also been alleged that the petitioner had taken the victim to Tarapeeth, forcibly committed rape upon her and after making a video, he made it viral.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that the video, etc., has been provided by the victim herself and the video has not been found in any social media platform.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the status report, charge has already been framed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State and the informant

2026:JHHC:28753

2

have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that not only the victim has provided the material in pen drive, but the video has been found in the social media platform of Facebook, which was made viral from the ID of the petitioner. They have referred to paragraph 26 of the case diary and they submit that there is direct allegation of committing rape upon the victim by the petitioner.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner of having committed rape upon the victim and also making the video viral, which has been found in the Facebook during investigation, and the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

8. The state is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.

9. Learned counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director Prosecution, to ensure compliance.

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:28.09.2026