2026:JHHC:22468 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5901 of 2026 Rameshwar Prasad @ Rameshwar Pd. Mehta @ Rameshwar Prasad Mehta, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Magan Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP --- 03/29.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2026 in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 82 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 292, 296, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2) of BNS and Section 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Trafficking Act pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted. He has submitted that initially the petitioner was alleged to be the owner of the hotel where the immoral activities were going on. He has submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the hotel, but his son is the owner of the hotel, who has been running the hotel. He has submitted that the petitioner has ‘Gaushala’ next to the hotel and it is just a chance that at the time of raid, the petitioner was found at the place of occurrence. The learned counsel has submitted that though the victims have stated in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged occurrence inasmuch as he used to open the door of rooms, but during their statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS no such allegation has been made rather the entire allegation 2026:JHHC:22468 2 has been made only against the son of the petitioner, who is the owner of the hotel. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, it is not in dispute that the hotel is not in the name of the petitioner, but it is in the name of his son. Learned counsel has also gone through the statement of the victims recorded under Section 183 BNSS and has confirmed that the victims have not taken the name of the petitioner although they have stated against the son of the petitioner in their statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the statements of the victims recorded under Section 183 BNSS wherein they have not made any allegation so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the charge sheet has already been submitted and admittedly the hotel is not in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Hazaribag in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 82 of 2026 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings 2026:JHHC:22468 3 before the learned court below. 6. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 7. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 29.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-01.08.2026