Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8819/2026 of SUDHIR RAI @ SUDHIR KUMAR RAI @ SUDHIR RAY Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8819 of 2026 Sudhir Rai @ Sudhir Kumar Rai @ Sudhir Ray, aged about 21 years, son of Chandrika Rai, resident of Village Kundi, P.O. and P.S. Lokainayanpur District Giridih (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:28578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8819 of 2026
Sudhir Rai @ Sudhir Kumar Rai @ Sudhir Ray, aged about 21 years, son of Chandrika Rai, resident of Village Kundi, P.O. and P.S. Lokainayanpur District Giridih (Jharkhand).
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP
---
03/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2026 in connection with Lokainayanpur P.S. Case No.07 of 2026, corresponding to POCSO Case No.113 of 2026, registered under Sections 64 (2) (m), 69, 89, 126 (2), 115 (2), 351 (2), 352, 3 (5) of BNS, Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (r ) (s ) SC/ST Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and as per the allegation, the petitioner and the victim were having consensual relationship for some time and ultimately when the marriage was not solemnized, she filed the false case against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that charge – sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner was always ready and willing to marry the victim.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 64 (2) (m), 69, 89, 126 (2), 115 (2), 351 (2), 352, and 3 (5) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner on 20.07.2026. He further submits that the victim has ultimately committed suicide in her parent’s house on 13.06.2026 and one UD
2026:JHHC:28578
Case No.01 of 2026 has been lodged and final report has already been submitted, which is referred to in the impugned order also and the victim has alleged that she was pregnant.
6. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no document with regard to pregnancy could be found during investigation.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner in connection with establishing sexual relationship with the minor victim and it is alleged that she had also become pregnant, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The fact remains that the victim has ultimately committed suicide on 13.06.2026.
8. This bail application is accordingly rejected.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026