( 2026:JHHC:25570 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6610 of 2026 Mritunjay Swarnkar @ Gudra son of Santosh Swarnkar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP For the Informant : Mr. Pramendra Kumar Mehta, Advocate --- 07/24.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 66 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 87 and 137(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 28.04.2026 and there was love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, though victim has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the informant while opposing the prayer for bail has submitted that there was no love relationship between the petitioner and the victim, rather the petitioner abducted the minor daughter of the informant and kept her inside one box. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has supported the prosecution case. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim has given different statement in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS before the police and 183 BNSS before the court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the statement of the victim aged 16 years recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she has fully supported the prosecution ( 2026:JHHC:25570 ) 2 case and has alleged that the petitioner had forcibly taken the victim and there is no indication of any love affair, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.08.2026 Uploaded on 31.08.2026 Binit/