( 2026:JHHC:20945 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5378 of 2026 Kunj Bihari Pandey son of Om Prakash Pandey … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP -- 05/15.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2025, S.T. No. 235 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 140(3) 64(2)m/ 89/123/126(2)/115(2)/352/351(2)/351(3)/61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned A.J.C. XV, Ranchi (JO Code JH00452) (or his successor). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; the petitioner and the victim belong to different religion. He submits that as per the allegation the victim was major and the petitioner entangled her in love affair and subsequently forcibly committed rape upon her in a car, although he used to say that he will marry her. The victim was taken to Noida in the house of the relative of the petitioner and the petitioner assaulted her and ultimately, she was recovered. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the victim were having love affair and they have also performed marriage in a temple at Ranchi. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1st incident had taken place on 17.02.2025 and the FIR was lodged on 20.10.2025. He has further submitted that charge has already been framed and the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2026 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 183 BBNSS has been called for and she has fully supported ( 2026:JHHC:20945 ) 2 the case in her statement. The fact remains that the victim was taken to Noida and there she was also assaulted and was brought back from NOIDA. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the victim has also supported the allegation in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 8. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some observation may be so that the trial be expedited. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses be promptly produced before the court. 10. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 11. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.07.2026 Uploaded on : 15.07.2026 Binit/