2026:JHHC:7532 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1451 of 2026 ----- XXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate ------ Order No. 02/Dated 18th March, 2026 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking therein direction to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No.99 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 115, 126(2), 303, 316, 318, 336, 338, 85, 64, 61 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no such offence whatsoever as alleged in the F.I.R. and he has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner and victim are legally married husband and wife 2026:JHHC:7532 2 as such there is no question of committing cheating and rape against the victim. 5. It has been submitted that from perusal of the complaint/F.I.R. it would be evident that there was a love affair between the petitioner and victim and later on both have solemnized the marriage in presence of family members of both side and thereafter victim started living in matrimonial house with the petitioner as husband and wife. The petitioner neither cheated the victim or her mother nor he established physical relationship forcefully against her will at any point of time as such no case U/s 115/126(2)/303/ 316/ 318/ 336/338/64/61 BNS is made out against this petitioner. 6. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has never tortured the victim for demand of dowry, hence, no case U/s 85 BNS is made out against this petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if case of the prosecution is accepted, for the sake of the argument, the petitioner and the victim are legally married husband and wife and after marriage the victim started living in the house of the petitioner as his wife as such no case is made out against this petitioner. 8. It has been submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 29.11.2025 for no fault on his part. 2026:JHHC:7532 3 9. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 10. It has been submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that he made physical relation with the informant forcefully on the promise of marriage and when informant pressurized him, the accused petitioner solemnized marriage with her saying that he will solemnize marriage with her only to save himself from the charge of rape. 11. It has further been submitted that the accused petitioner was committing torture upon the victim physically and mentally for want of dowry even after the said marriage. 12. Learned State counsel has submitted that the accused petitioner had appeared before the court through VC and on being asked, he flatly refused to live with the informant. 13. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegation against this petitioner is very serious. 14. It has been submitted that as would be evident from the order of the learned Sessions court, the informant and other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case (Para 7, 8, and 9 of case diary) and the victim has also supported her case in Section 180 as well as Section 183 BNSS statements and alleged repeated sexual relationship without her consent. 2026:JHHC:7532 4 15. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is fit to be rejected. 16. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 17. This Court, after going through the complaint/F.I.R., has found that specific allegations like sexual exploitation, demand of dowry, torture etc. have been levelled against the petitioner which are serious in nature. 18. The main allegation against this petitioner is that he made physical relation with the informant forcefully on the promise of marriage and for keeping her as wife he demanded a four-wheeler and cash as dowry. 19. This Court, considering the fact that the nature of allegation is serious, is of the view that the present bail application is to be rejected. 20. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Date : 18th March, 2026 Birendra/