2026:JHHC:22560 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6808 of 2026 Arbind Mandal @ Arvind Mandal, son of Sirish Mandal. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP --- 04/30.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2026 in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.106/2022, G.R. No.266/2023, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 380, 452, 376 (D), 120 B and 307 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class Rajmahal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident took place on 23.07.2021 and the complaint case was filed on 03.08.2021; therefore, there is delay of 9 days in filing the complaint case. 4. The learned counsel further submits that after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and the petitioner along with others was granted bail earlier vide order dated 19.04.2023. However, the court has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 as well as Section 376 (D)/34 of IPC and the accused persons were summoned. 5. The learned counsel submits that although in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant were issued and that on the basis of non-bailable warrant the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.05.2026, he was never served with a copy of the bailable warrant. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order also reveals that two other accused are still evading the process of law. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, 2026:JHHC:22560 2 that cognizance has been wrongly taken under Section 376 (D) of Indian Penal Code and that the petitioner was taken into custody without cancelling his earlier bail bond. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that initially cognizance was taken under bailable sections and since non-bailable section of 376 D / 34 was added, therefore, upon summons, the petitioner was supposed to appear before the court and pray for bail again, but the petitioner did not cooperate and he was arrested. He further submits that the petitioner has not annexed a copy of the order sheet to demonstrate as to how bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant were issued against the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2023 has been placed on record, which reveals that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she reiterated the fact of commission of rape by the three accused persons one by one. In such circumstances, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 376(D)/ 34 IPC and a date was fixed for the appearance of the accused persons. 9. The order taking cognizance itself reveals that the victim made direct allegations of rape against three persons including the petitioner. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application is accordingly rejected. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:31.07.2026