NILESH RAJAK ALIAS NILESH KUMAR RAJAK v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./7419/2026 · 2026-08-24
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24336 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24336 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:25590
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 7419 of 2026
Nilesh Rajak @ Nilesh Kumar Rajak, aged about 24 years, Son of Ranjit Rajak, Resident of Village-Bhuska Kusapur, P.O. + P.S.-Khalgoan, District-Bhagalpur, Bihar.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
---
03/24th August 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 48/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 87 & 3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Godda.
2. The counter-affidavit filed during the court proceeding is taken on record.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in custody since 07.04.2026. The charge-sheet has already been submitted under Sections 87/64(2)(m) of BNS. The petitioner and the victim became friends through Instagram.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is a married person and in the pretext of marriage, the entire incident had happened. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, has supported the allegation against the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the victim has supported the allegation against the petitioner in her
2026:JHHC:25590
2
statement under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 24.08.2026
Uploaded On: 29.08.2026
Mukul/-