( 2026:JHHC:26253 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6921 of 2026 Sk. Nur Muhammad Ali son of Sk. Mujibar Ali … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocate --- 06/31.08.2026 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 Gumla P.S. Case No. 167 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 64(1), 351(2), 126(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted and charge has been framed. The learned counsel further submits that victim is a married lady and during the investigation the statement of her husband has been recorded who has stated that he had hired the petitioner for doing some carpenter work which was also over by 25th February, 2026 and he came to know that on 01.05.2026 his wife was seen with the petitioner and the case was filed only after the relationship with the petitioner and the victim came to light before the husband of the victim. The learned counsel submits that the 1st incident alleged to have happened on 15.01.2026 and it is alleged that some video and photo was made which was used to threaten the victim and the petitioner continued to rape the victim on a number of occasions thereafter. He has further submitted that no video or photo has been recovered during investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-informant has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has made direct allegation against the petitioner and having committed rape upon her on the point ( 2026:JHHC:26253 ) 2 of knife and had been threatening the victim and her children. He further submits that the petitioner does not belong to the State of Jharkhand and he is a resident of West Bengal. 5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the victim has supported the allegation against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that during the course of argument it transpired that the trial has commenced and there are altogether 05 charge sheet witnesses and the victim is yet to be examined, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months from today. 8. State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 10. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 31.08.2026 Uploaded on 01.09.2026 Binit/