2026:JHHC:21018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6077 of 2026 Ashok Jha, aged about 64 years, Son of Vimal Jha … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP --- 05/15.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed during the court’s proceeding which is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2026 in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.65 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) & 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be neighbor of the victims and is residing across the road. He has further submitted that though there is direct allegation against the petitioner, but there is delay of 7 days in lodging the first information report. He has further submitted that the victim in the first information report itself has mentioned that the police was informed then and there, but inspite of that the first information was not lodged. After hearing the siren of the police vehicle, the petitioner fled from the place of occurrence and left his slipper, but the slipper has not been seized. He has also submitted that the two victims i.e. the mother and the daughter have refused medical examination. He has also submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the statement of 2026:JHHC:21018 2 the victims have been recorded under Section 183 BNSS and they have fully supported the case. The witnesses in the locality have also supported the prosecution case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation made against the petitioner, who is the neighbor of the victims and also considering the fact that the victims, who is mother and daughter, have supported the case of the prosecution in their statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, 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.) 15.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-15.07.2026