2026:JHHC:4864 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11092 of 2025 Md. Arman aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Tahir, Resident of Village-Gourichak, 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 : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, APP ----------- 05/Dated:18th February, 2026 The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail who is in custody in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.29 of 2025, corresponding to G.R No.1023 of 2025, instituted for the offences under sections 127/140(3)/142/64(1)/3(5) of BNS, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda. 2. 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, co-accused-Bibi Khusbu took her to house where petitioner Md. Arman was sitting on the Cot inside the room. After giving snacks to both of them, Bibi Khusbu locked them and co-accused Md. Arman committed rape upon her forcibly and allured her for marriage though she was married lady. It is also alleged that petitioner and co-accused-Bibi Khusbu took her to Barahat on Motorcycle and tortured her whole night and she was kept in custody till 20.07.2025 and released near her village but due to social pressure, she could not file the complaint on time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has committed no offence. There is delay of more than 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. as she was allegedly left her village on 20.07.2025 by the petitioner, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.08.2025 and occurrence had taken place 2026:JHHC:4864 2 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 further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025 and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner-Md. Arman for committing rape upon the Victim with the help of one co- accused-Bibi Khusbu. It is submitted that petitioner forcibly took the Victim girl to Barahat and where she was kept till 20.07.2025 and hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 5. Perused the case diary, F.I.R. and considered the submissions of both sides. 6. It appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner for committing rape upon the Victim forcibly on 11.06.2025 with the connivance of co-accused-Bibi Khusbu and took her to Barahat by motorcycle and kept her till 20.07.2025. 7. It also appears from the impugned order of learned Court below that the victim girl in her subsequent statement recorded at paragraph-2 and the witnesses at paragraph-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary have fully supported the prosecution case. 8. 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. 9. Thus, it appears that this petitioner had committed rape upon the Victim girl on 11.06.2025 and kept her illegally and confined her illegally in Barahat in his house till 20.07.2025 i.e. for more than one month. Hence, it can be inferred that this petitioner has exploited the informant to a great extent without any rhyme and reason and hence the act of the petitioner amounts to a heinous offence. 2026:JHHC:4864 3 10. Thus, the delay of ten (10) days in lodging the FIR can be understood when the victim lady was in mental agony and stress. 11. Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 18.02.2026 Saket/-