2026:JHHC:17375 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2925 of 2026 Raushan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar, son of late Anil Prasad Yadav @ Gorela Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP --- 07/16.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025 in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.130 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 303 (2), 333, 79, 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025 and submitted that the case is at the stage of trial and no witness has been examined so far. 4. The learned counsel further submits that although there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has committed rape on the victim on the point of gun and has also looted her jewellery and cash, but there is no recovery and no video has been recovered. During investigation, the CDR has also not been collected . The victim has denied medical examination and there is delay of 5 days in lodging the F.I.R. The date of incident is 02.12.2025 and the F.I.R. has been filed on 07.12.2025. He has also submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had also called the husband of the victim, who is residing outside, to inform him that he is taking away his wife, but the statement of the husband has been recorded in the case diary and he has not made any such allegation. 5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and 2026:JHHC:17375 2 submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant victim has also opposed the prayer and submitted that victim has supported the case under Section 183 BNSS. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the submissions which have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the materials collected during investigation, and those submissions are not in dispute from the side of the opposite parties; the victim has admittedly denied the medical examination, 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma in connection with Satgawan P.S. Case No.130 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. 9. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:16.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:18.06.2026