2026:JHHC:26281 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7215 of 2026 Uttam Kumar Mahato, aged about 33 Years, Son of Krishna Sharan Mahato, Resident of Qr. No. 87, Workers Flat, Baridih, PO - Baridih & PS - Sidhgora, Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), PIN - 831017. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. D. K. Karmakar, Advocate --- 05/1st September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 49/2026 for the offence registered under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2026 and charge-sheet has already been submitted for alleged offence under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS. The allegation against the petitioner is that certain video/photographs were prepared, but there was no recovery to that effect. The petitioner and the victim were in a consensual relationship for last five years, since 2021 and that both of them were working in the same company, namely, JUSCO. 3. Learned counsel for the Informant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim was forcefully raped and was raped repeatedly under threat and fear of death. The victim is yet to be examined before the court. The victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. It is also submitted that the photographs were recovered and handed over to the prosecution 2026:JHHC:26281 2 by the informant in a pen drive. There are direct and serious allegation against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the allegation directly made against the petitioner, the fact that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the allegation that the victim was repeatedly raped under threat and fear of death and the victim is yet to be examined before the court , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.09.2026 Uploaded On: 01.09.2026 Mukul/-