2026:JHHC:18980 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5830 of 2026 Baleshwar Hazam @ Baneshwar Hazam, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Gurucharan Hazam. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Bandana Sinha, Advocate --- 02/30.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.01.2026 in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64(1), 351 (2)(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Khunti now as S.T. No. 63 of 2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner in the first information report, but there is delay of 6 days in filing the first information report. The date of occurrence is on 07.12.2025 and the first information report has been lodged on 13.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the first information report, this Court finds that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner. The first incident, as per the first information report, took place on 07.12.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner again approach the victim on 09.12.2025, but the victim did not open the door. It is also asserted in the first information report that on 11.12.2025, the victim placed her grievance before the Village Mahila Mandal and thereafter, on 13.12.2025 the 2026:JHHC:18980 2 victim lodged the first information report. The first information report itself reveals certain explanation with regard to delay in filing first information report. 6. Considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/e-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 30.06.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-01.07.2026