Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13345 (JHR)

SAMEER ALAM ALIAS SAMIR KHAN ALIAS SAMIR ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./4001/2026 · 2026-05-12

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:14443 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4001 of 2026 Sameer Alam @ Samir Alam @ Samir Ansari son of Mansur Ansari @ Md. Mansor … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. --- 02/12.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2026. in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 34 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 64 (2) (m) of B.N.S, 2023, and section 4 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Section 66E, 67, 67(a) of Information Technology Act,, pending in the court of learned District Sessions Judge -1st Cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the FIR, serious allegation of rape and objectionable video made viral has been made against the petitioner, but there is no specific date of the alleged offence committing rape upon the victim. The learned counsel submits that victim has been living in her village for the last one year and there is enormous delay in filing of FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The obscene videos are alleged to have been circulated in the social ( 2026:JHHC:14443 ) 2 media and the victim, who is aged only 13 years, has supported the allegation in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.05.2026 Uploaded on: 13.05.2026 Binit/