Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21697 (JHR)

MAHENDRA PRASAD YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./6504/2026 · 2026-07-22

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:21613 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6504 of 2026 Mahendra Prasad Yadav son of Pokhi Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP --- 05/22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2026 in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 155 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 70(1) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been alleged that the victim in the present case is a mentally disabled person 28 years of age and she is not the informant of the case as she would not have disclosed anything about the alleged offence. He further submits that mother of the victim has lodged the FIR and there is land dispute between the parties. He has also submitted that the petitioner happens to be the friend of the own uncle of the victim and uncle of the victim as well as his friend are co-accused in this case. He has also submitted that it is almost impossible to imagine that the uncle of the victim and his friend will commit such heinous offence. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that in the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that the statement of the victim has been recorded ( 2026:JHHC:21613 ) 2 under Section 183 BNSS and the victim has stated that the accused committed rape upon her. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the heinous offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the co-accused upon the victim who is mentally challenged, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.07.2026 Uploaded on 24.07.2026 Binit/