( 2026:JHHC:6183 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1296 of 2026 ------ Subhash Das @ Subhash Chandra Das @ Subhash Ch Das, aged about 49 years, s/o late Niranjan Das, r/o Bangali Tola Jamnagar, P.O.+P.S.-Rajmahal, Dist.-Sahibganj … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 10.03.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.379 of 2025 (POSCO Case No.78 of 2025) registered for the offences punishable under sections 64(2)/62/74 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 8/12 of POSCO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the minor victim girl and also committed sexual harassment of her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and because of land dispute, this false case has been foisted. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application and charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that all the witnesses including the witness whose statement has been recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. have supported the case of the prosecution and admittedly, the petitioner was also involved in a case of rape earlier though he claims to have been acquitted in that case. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 10.03.2026 Gunjan-