2026:JHHC:19241 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6029 of 2026 Bijju Tigga @ Kaila Tigga @ Sonu Tigga, age about 38 years, S/o Late Sukhram Tigga … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Aayushi Aman, Advocate --- 04/01.07.2026 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 27.02.2026 in connection with Namkum P.S. case No. 48 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64 (2)(K) of BNS 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C. at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the first information report, but the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of land dispute. The petitioner happens to be a relative of the victim. She has further submitted that as per the first information report, the victim was mentally weak, but the disability certificate which has been annexed with the first information report was valid till 17.04.2024 and the first information report has been lodged on 25.02.2026. Learned counsel has also submitted that the victim became pregnant and the petitioner was ready for the DNA test. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that by the permission of the court, the pregnancy was terminated and the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS where she has supported the allegation made against the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:19241 2 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that disability certificate indicates that the victim was disable to the extent of 60%. 6. The fact that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNSS and she has supported the allegation is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, she has submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted on 22.04.2026. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation made against the petitioner and that the victim examined under Section 183 BNSS has supported the allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 01.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-03.07.2026