( 2026:JHHC:19940 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5332 of 2026 Madheshwar Oraon @ Magheshwar Oraon, aged about 28 years, S/o Late Vijay Oraon @ Vijay Oraon, R/o Village- Sisai Basti, PO- Sisai, PS- Sisai, District- Gumla, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Party (s) --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP For the informant : Ms. Rishika Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate --- 03/07.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2026 in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.98 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC and the case is pending in the court of learned J.M. F.C., Gumla. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim came across with each other through social media “Instagram” and there was talk of marriage between them and in the meantime, the petitioner committed rape upon the victim and also prepared video and blackmailed her and subsequently repeatedly raped her and ultimately refused to marry. 4. He further submits that no video clipping has been recovered during investigation and charge-sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer and has submitted that during her medical examination, it has come that victim was also subjected to abortion. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation in the FIR or otherwise or even in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, 2023 that the victim suffered any abortion. ( 2026:JHHC:19940 ) 2 So far as recovery of the video is concerned, it is not in dispute that no such video clipping has been recovered. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted and no such video clipping has been recovered during investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of J.M. F.C., Gumla. in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.98 of 2025 on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not disturb the victim in any manner whatsoever and if such incidence occurs, it is certainly open to the victim to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (iii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iv) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (v) 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. (vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 9. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. 10. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 07.07.2026. Uploaded sandeep/