Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:4581) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10494 of 2025 Bibi Khusbhu @ Bibi Khusbo Khatoon, aged about 30 years, W/o Md. Abdul @ Md. Budhu, resident of village - Mal Pratappur, P.O. + P.S.- Thakurgangti, District- Godda. … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. --- 03/17.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 127/ 140(3)/ 142/ 64(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 11.06.2025 at about 7:00 P.M., while the informant was in home then the petitioner came there and took her to her house where co-accused Md. Arman was sitting on the Cot inside the room. After giving snacks to both of them, Bibi Khusbu (i.e. the petitioner) locked them and co-accused Md. Arman committed rape upon her forcibly and allured her for marriage although she was married lady. It is also alleged that the petitioner and co-accused Md. Arman took her to Barahat on Motorcycle and tortured her whole night and she was kept in custody till 20.07.2025 and they released her near her village however, due to social pressure, she could not file the complaint on time. -2- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and has committed no offence. It is submitted that there is delay of more than 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. as the informant was allegedly left her village on 20.07.2025 by the co-accused, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.08.2025 and occurrence had taken place on 11.06.2025. It is submitted that none of the family members of the victim girl has instituted any case for searching her. It is submitted that petitioner is a lady and there is no direct involvement for committing rape upon the victim girl, as has been attributed other co-accused Md. Arman. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., and she had called the victim girl in her house and she facilitated the co-accused Md. Arman for committing rape upon her. It is submitted that the petitioner was also involved in taking the victim girl to Barahat on 11.06.2025, where she was kept till 20.07.2025 and hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 6. Perused the F.I.R. and case diary and considered the submissions of both sides. -3- 7. It appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner for bringing the victim girl in her house on 11.06.2025 where the co- accused Md. Arman was sitting there and committed rape upon her forcibly and she was also instrumental along with co-accused Md. Arman for taking her to Barahat by motorcycle and kept her till 20.07.2025. Thus, the petitioner was also instrumental in keeping the informant in wrongful confinement from 11.06.2025 till 20.07.2025 i.e. more than one month. Thus, it can be inferred that informant was subjected to sexual harassment for a long period at the hands of co-accused Md. Rahman and rape was committed upon the informant in the house of the petitioner. 8. It also appears from the statement of the victim girl recorded at paragraph-2 and the witnesses namely Md. Hussnain, Bibi Rasiba, Bibi Sulekha and Md. Mainuddin at paragraph-6 and 8 of the case diary, they have fully supported the prosecution case. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. and she has fully supported the prosecution case. 10. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) February 17, 2026 Jay-Rahul/