Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20200 (JHR)

RAJ PRATAP SAY ALIAS RAJ PRATAP SAI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./6649/2026 · 2026-07-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:20893 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6649 of 2026 Raj Pratap Say @ Raj Pratap Sai, son of late Jitan Say. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Kumari Rashmi, APP --- 08/15.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2024 in connection with Kurdeg P.S. Case No.09 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. Case No.62/2024, alleged to have committed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 376, 506, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, charge framed on 03.12.2024 under Section 323, 341, 342, 376, 506, 354/34 of IPC, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Simdega. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and in the F.I.R. itself it has been stated that the petitioner forcibly established physical relationship with the victim. 5. At this, upon a query of this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 11 witnesses only 3 have been examined so far and the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2024. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the specific and serious allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining 2026:JHHC:20893 2 witnesses, FSL Report, if any, are promptly produced before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:15.07.2026