2026:JHHC:17558 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4646 of 2026 Abhay Tiwary @ Anshu Kumar Tiwary, son of Shambhu Nath Tiwary @ Shankar Nath Tiwary … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Informant : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP --- 03/17.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2026 in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.34/2026, registered under Sections 118(2)/109/352/351(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023, now pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an allegation that the petitioner along with others came to the tea stall run by the brother of the victim, where the victim also used to help her brother. The accused persons arrived at the tea stall in a Fortuner car and there was some delay in serving tea and allegation has been made that one of the accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of the girl and further during the altercation, one of the accused persons threw boiling tea on the body of the victim who suffered grievous injury and she was taken to hospital. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the confessional statements of the accused persons including the petitioner and co- accused Prem Kumar, reveal that it was Prem Kumar who picked up the boiling tea and threw it on the body of the victim. The petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2026 and the charge sheet has already been submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the Informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the manner in which the 2026:JHHC:17558 2 occurrence has happened and also the fact that after the occurrence also, the petitioner and co-accused threatened the victim and the informant and asked them to discontinue running the tea stall, otherwise there would face dire consequences, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned counsel submits that the victim and the informant are poor persons and the victim has suffered grievous injury and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he will try to influence the witnesses including the victim. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegations made against the petitioner and the co-accused who had together gone to the tea stall of the informant where the victim was working with the informant and the manner in which the incident had happened causing grievous burn injuries upon the victim, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 9. 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