Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21774 (JHR)

SANJEEV KUMAR DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./6484/2026 · 2026-07-24

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:21913 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6484 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar Das, Son of Sukanta Kumar Das, Sukanto Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Lily Sahay, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Anjumar Dewarshi, Advocate --- 03/24th July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Mahila Kiriburu (Camp Noamundi) P.S. Case No. 03/2026 for the offence registered under Section 69/115(2)/351(2) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Subh Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim and the petitioner were working in the same company and it is alleged against the petitioner that he established physical relationship with the victim in the false pretext of marriage. The petitioner is in custody since 23.05.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has placed the FIR to submit that the petitioner, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relationship with the victim and committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that the petitioner continued to establish physical relations with the victim and, when she insisted upon marriage, he started threatening and assaulting her from time to time. It is also alleged that the petitioner started spread false information about the victim to defame her. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 2026:JHHC:21913 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after expiry of six months from today. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.07.2026 Uploaded On: 25.07.2026 Mukul/-