VIPIN KUMAR RAWANI @ BIPIN RAWANI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./6723/2026 · 2026-07-28
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22119 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 22119 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:22225
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6723 of 2026
Vipin Kumar Rawani @ Bipin Rawani, Son of Lakhan Rawani
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Ms. Shweta Singh, Advocate
---
04/28th July 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 59/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 74, 75(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Deoghar.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case primarily on account of certain dispute regarding payment of salary. The FIR has been registered for offence under Sections 74, 75(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act and under Section 8 of POCSO Act, the minimum punishment is three years and maximum punishment is five years. The petitioner is in custody since 01.04.2026 and charge has been framed on
04.06.2026.
3.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and as per the impugned order, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein she has supported the allegation against the petitioner.
2026:JHHC:22225
2
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court.
6.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 28.07.2026
Uploaded On: 29.07.2026
Mukul/-