Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 52 of 2026 Vivek Kumar Singh @ Vivek Kumar, S/o Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, R/o Charku Chauk, BIT Mesra, P.O. & P.S.- Mesra, Dist.- Ranchi. --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. --- --- Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Neharika Mazumdar, Adv. For the O.P.(s) : Spl. P.P. --- 02/15.06.2026 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. This application is directed against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in connection with Misc. Criminal Application No. 1862/2025, whereby and whereunder, the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Submission has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the victim is a major and there was a long-standing physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim. It has further been submitted that there are discrepancies with respect to the hotel in which the petitioner subjected the victim to physical intimacy. It has also been submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid facts while rejecting the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner. Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made in this application. It appears from the allegations that the victim who was residing in Ranchi since 2019 became acquainted with the petitioner and on the pretext of marriage the victim was physically exploited on several occasions and at one point of Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17161 time, she had become pregnant and medicines were administered to her which resulted in termination of her pregnancy. The petitioner has subsequently refused to solemnize marriage on the pretext that his father was demanding Rs. 25 lakhs as dowry. It appears from the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 that apart from the allegations having been considered, the 183 B.N.S.S. statement of the victim has also been considered though learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the said statement has not been provided to the petitioner. The overall facts and circumstances of the case clearly reveal that it was the petitioner who had induced the victim to establish physical relationship with him on multiple occasions on the pretext of marriage. At the time of discharge, the court cannot sift through the evidence and come to a conclusion rather on a prima facie view of the allegations levelled, it clearly transpires that a case is made out against the petitioner which has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court and on considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this application which accordingly stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated- 15th June, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 17 /06/2026.