[2026:JHHC:4793] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11002 of 2025 --------- Sanjay Mandal @ Sanjay Kumar Mandal, aged about 31 years, s/o Mangaldew Mandal, r/o Village-Sathibad, P.O. Chpuwadih, P.S.- Bengabad, District-Giridih, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP For the Informant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate ---------- 03/Dated: 18th February, 2026 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.460 of 2025 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025 registered under Section 64(1) and 351(3) of B.N.S. pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Giridih. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per the prosecution version the petitioner has been allowed to have committed rape by taking advantage of a lady being alone in the house at about 12:00 p.m. in the noon and on the threat of pistol. 3. It has been contended by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that FIR has been instituted after the delay of 06 days and the delay in institution of FIR is itself a cause to disbelieve the prosecution version. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground of custody since the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.08.2025. [2026:JHHC:4793] Page | 2 5. While on the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite party-State and learned counsel for the informant have jointly submitted that the delay in institution of the FIR has well been explained. 6. It has been contended that it has come in the FIR itself that the petitioner is a man of influence of that area and due to that reason, the FIR could not have been instituted immediately after the occurrence. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The contention has been raised on behalf of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner that the occurrence took place in the broad day light at about 12:00 p.m. in the noon and there is no resistance said to be shown by the victim, the informant. 9. However, the same has been responded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opp. Party-State and learned counsel for the informant by referring to the relevant part of the FIR that due to the fear of the accused person, the petitioner, since he is having influence in that area, the FIR could not have been instituted immediately after the occurrence. 10. Considering the nature of crime having been supported by the victim, this Court is of the view that the present application is not fit to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected at this stage. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 18th February, 2026 Saurabh/-