2026:JHHC:17566 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3486 of 2026 XX … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Kr. Vishain, Advocate --- 08/17.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2025 in connection with ST Case No.139 of 2026, corresponding to Chanho P.S. Case No.181/2025, registered under Section 308(5), 231, 308 (4), 76, 352, 351 (2), 351 (3), 61 (2) of BNS 2023, now pending in the court of learned AJC – VII – cum – Spl. Judge CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a lady had filed Bero P.S. Case No.85 of 2025 on 03.09.2025 alleging gang rape upon her and in that case, the son of the informant of the present case was taken into custody. He submits on 12.12.2025, the informant filed Chanho P.S. Case No.181 of 2025 which is the present case, alleging that one Sabir Khan is the land mafia and he has been using the present petitioner for filing false cases and extorting money and with this accusation, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present case is a counter blast of Bero P.S. Case No.85 of 2025 and thereby the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that so far as allegation of extortion is concerned, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner except that she was being used for lodging false cases alleging rape. He has also submitted that it has come in the confessional statement of the 2026:JHHC:17566 2 petitioner that she was being used for filing false cases, but the same has no value in the eyes of law. He further submits that no such similar case lodged by the petitioner has been reported so far. 5. During the course of previous hearing, it came to light that as per the case diary, one criminal case of similar nature i.e. Chanho P.S. Case No.179 of 2025 was filed in which similar allegation has been made against the petitioner along with the co-accused of the present case and it was further submitted that the present petitioner is not an accused in the said case. 6. The State was directed to file a counter affidavit to this effect and as per the counter affidavit, it has come that the petitioner is not a co-accused in Chanho P.S. Case No.179 of 2025. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if that was the allegation that the petitioner was being used for filing false cases of rape, there is no material on record to substantiate this fact inasmuch as no other case has been reported wherein the petitioner had filed false case. He has submitted that the petitioner had filed one rape case in Khelgaon P.S. Case No.86 of 2024 against one Aditya Yadav and ultimately that ended in a compromise by stating that the petitioner and Aditya Yadav got married. He submits that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prayer for bail of the co-accused has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No. 3375 of 2026 vide order dated 09.06.2026. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it has only been alleged that the petitioner has filed false case of rape. The case of the petitioner stands on different footing as that of the other co-accused. So far as the allegation that the petitioner is involved in filing false cases of rape is concerned, no material has been placed on record. 10. Considering the fact that charge sheet has already been 2026:JHHC:17566 3 submitted, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 AJC – VII – cum – Spl. Judge CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi in connection with ST Case No.139 of 2026, corresponding to Chanho P.S. Case No.181/2025, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be her 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 her Aadhar Card along with her mobile number before the learned court which she 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. 11. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:17.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:18.06.2026