Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19801 (JHR)

SUBRATA BHAITHA v. THE STATE OFJHARKHAND

B.A./5882/2026 · 2026-07-09

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:20291 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5882 of 2026 Subrata Baitha, Son of Late Sapan Baitha … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate --- 06/9th July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Baharagora P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026 for the offence registered under Section 96 and 3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ghatsila. 2. Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant during the court proceedings, which is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 18 years and has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim was 15 years 8 months and 7 days of age as recorded in the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that the allegation is that the petitioner had kidnapped the victim and forcibly put vermillion on her forehead. The learned counsel submits that there appears to be love affair between the petitioner and the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS that she was forcefully kidnapped and there is no element of any love affair between the petitioner and the victim. 2026:JHHC:20291 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and no element of love affair is reflecting therefrom, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.07.2026 Uploaded On: 11.07.2026 Mukul/-