2026:JHHC:24780 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7717 of 2026 Safdar Ali, aged about 28 years, S/o Sair Ali, R/o Village Narpat Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Swar, District Rampur, (U.P.). At present residing at Chandan Nagar, P.O. GPO, P.S. Dehradun, Dehradun … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parwez Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate --- 04/18th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Pakuria P.S. Case No. 47/2024 (S.T. Case No. 57/2025) for the offence registered under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, said to be pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. The perusal of the FIR would reveal that there was sufficient consent between the petitioner and the victim and the case was filed after the victim came to know that the petitioner was already married. Out of seven witnesses, four have already been examined. 3. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, has referred to the case-diary and has submitted that obscene video has also been recovered and kept in a pen-drive. The victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the victim was working in Gurgaon, but after she lost her job, she went to Dehradun at the instance of her friend, where she met the petitioner. Thereafter, they started talking over the phone and on being called by the petitioner, she went to Kerala. It has 2026:JHHC:24780 2 been alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner established physical relationship with her. Later, the victim came to know that the petitioner was already married. Thereafter, a dispute arose between them and the petitioner started assaulting her and made her video viral. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR itself, the fact that a pen drive containing obscene video, etc. has been collected during investigation, the petitioner was already married, which was not disclosed to the victim earlier and the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, 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: 18.08.2026 Uploaded On:19.08.2026 Mukul/-