Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14579 (JHR)

SUBHASH KUMAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./561/2026 · 2026-02-13

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:4079] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 561 of 2026 Subhash Kumar Mahto, Aged about- 25 Years, Son of- Ramesh Mahto, Resident of Govindpur Road, Karra P.O.& P.S- Khunti, Dist- Khunti, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and false allegations are made of having the relationship with the girl of the informant and so far the allegation of terminating the pregnancy is concerned, there is no material. On these grounds, he submits that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has established physical relationship and thereafter he has refused to marry with the girl of the informant, pursuant to that the girl of the informant has committed suicide. 5. There is direct allegation of instigation against this petitioner, as the petitioner has refused to marry with the girl of the [2026:JHHC:4079] -2- informant after having relationship for a long time, that’s why she has committed suicide and further the allegation of earlier terminating the pregnancy is also there against the petitioner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-13.02.2026 Amitesh/-