Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8801/2026 of MERAJUDDIN ANSARI ALIAS MD. MERAJIDDIN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 21 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8801 of 2026 Merajuddin Ansari @ Md. Merajuddin, aged about – 20 years, S/o Samsul Ansari, R/o village – Khavrideh, P.O. + P.S. – Dhanwar, 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:28462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8801 of 2026
Merajuddin Ansari @ Md. Merajuddin, aged about – 20 years, S/o Samsul Ansari, R/o village – Khavrideh, P.O. + P.S. – Dhanwar, District – Giridih, Jharkhand
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Komal S. Narayan, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. PP
---
05/21.09.2026
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 Dhanwar P.S. Case No.180 of 2026, registered under Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 351(3), 79, 61(2), and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II – cum – Special Judge (Cyber Crime), Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2026 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that there was settlement between the parties as contained in page no.23, which is part of the F.I.R., by which, the petitioner and his family members agreed not to disturb the informant and her family members. He submits that as per the allegation, the petitioner and his family members were forcing the family members of the victim for marriage of the victim with the petitioner and ultimately, they entered into settlement. However, the marriage of the victim was ultimately fixed and they started threatening the prospective bridegroom and then she was ultimately married to a 3rd person and now it is alleged that the petitioner made her certain photographs viral and has been threatening the victim as well as her husband.
2026:JHHC:28462
4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner and the victim belong to different religious communities. It is further submitted that the investigation is still ongoing, and at this stage, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail as the victim remains under constant fear.
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail as the victim is yet to be examined.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and it appears from the F.I.R. that the victim is under constant fear who is yet to be examined before the learned court, in such circumstances, 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:21.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:24.09.2026