2026:JHHC:16702 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3909 of 2026 Krishna Kumar Saha @ Krishna Kumar, son of Matuk Saha. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. X (Informant) … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP --- 04/10.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2026 in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.40/2026, registered under Sections 137 (2), 64 (1), 351 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS, now pending in the court of learned JMFC, Rajmahal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 09.02.2026. Charge sheet has already been submitted. He has further submitted that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and this would be apparent from Annexure – 2, which is dated 04.02.2026 relating to some proceeding of panchayat. He also submits that a photograph of the victim and the petitioner has also been annexed along with the bail application which would demonstrate that there was love affair between them. 4. The learned counsel for State including the learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the victim and in the panchayat, she did not participate. He has also submitted that no reliance can be placed on the photograph. 5. In view of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, there is allegation against the petitioner regarding repeated rape. He has also submitted that the victim was also medically examined by the doctor. 2026:JHHC:16702 2 6. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the allegations are very serious and the panchyati has no role to play as the alleged offence is not a compoundable offence. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation of repeated rape committed upon the victim by the petitioner and she has also supported the case against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS and she was also medically examined by the doctor, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 8. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned trial court. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:10.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:10.06.2026