2026:JHHC:16454 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4228 of 2026 Compoter Yadav @ Compounder Yadav, son of Alam Yadav @ Alam Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP --- 04/09.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.25 of 2026 arising out of Rikhiya P.S. Case No.128 of 2025, registered under Section 64(1) and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – IX, Deoghar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner and the victim are known to each other and while she was standing on the road, the petitioner had given lift to her and it is alleged that instead of taking her back home, the petitioner had taken her to an isolated place and committed rape upon her and also prepared a video which the petitioner made viral. He further submits that as per the F.I.R., the victim had gone to Sultanganj and the petitioner and his wife brought her back to the village and she accompanied them back to the village and it is alleged that she was thereafter threatened. 4. The learned counsel submits that no video has been recovered and accordingly no charge has been framed under I.T. Act. Charge has been framed under Sections 64 (1), 351 (2) of B.N.S. on 13.02.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, and 2026:JHHC:16454 2 therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that charge has already been framed, but no charge has been framed under the I.T. Act and also the fact that the victim herself has stated in the F.I.R. that she herself came back to her village along with the petitioner and his wife , the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge – IX, Deoghar in connection with S.T. Case No.25 of 2026 arising out of Rikhiya P.S. Case No.128 of 2025, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court. 7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:09.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:10.06.2026